Politics, Religion and Science oh my.....

[Valas Azuviir]

*Sigh*

Introduction to the topic (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm).


Evolution Isn't a Natural Selection Here

By P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writer Fri May 6, 7:55 AM ET

CLAY CENTER, Kan. — In this rural swath of northern Kansas, where the grass rolls thick and green to the horizon, a white cross dominates the landscape.
ADVERTISEMENT

Kathy Martin, a member of the state board of education, and her family built it on their farm this spring, gathering weathered chunks of limestone from the horse pasture and laying them on a hillside.

The cross is a proud expression of Martin's faith. And as hearings challenging the role of evolution in the state's school science curriculum began Thursday, that cross left little doubt about where she stood in the debate.

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."

The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.

Whichever curriculum proposal the board adopts in a vote planned for this summer, members say, it would serve only as a guideline for teachers, thus giving educators more leeway in the classroom. But the standards do determine what is included on statewide tests, and students would be required to learn that material.

"Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is in our schools," said William Harris, a chemist who was the first witness to speak Thursday on behalf of changing the state's curriculum. "This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."

Dozens of national and state science organizations are boycotting the hearings, which they see as an effort to introduce creationism and "intelligent design" into the classroom. Intelligent design is a concept that asserts that life on Earth is so complex that a higher power must have played a role in its creation.

"Public hearings and votes are not how the 'truth' of science is determined," said Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "We don't have to lend the credibility of science to the hearings."

Brian Sandefur, a board member of Intelligent Design Network, a nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kan., wondered: "Are they afraid to show up? Are they afraid to defend themselves?"

The debate over Kansas' curriculum, political experts say, reflects a broader effort by conservative Christian groups to move their agendas forward by electing like-minded officials at the state and local levels.

"Now the conservative Christians expect to get things done and they expect politicians they have backed to deliver for them," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio. "In cases where they have more influence, such as the Kansas school board, they're going to do it themselves."

Kansas isn't alone in the debate over teaching evolution.

Local school boards in Georgia and Pennsylvania recently voted to alter their science curriculums and provide for the teaching of alternative theories. Both moves are being challenged in court. And the Ohio
Department of Education passed a measure ensuring that teachers could hold classes that challenged the theory of evolution.

At least nine states, including Kansas, are considering bills that would affect how evolution is taught in their schools, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Kansas has flip-flopped on the issue over the last six years. In 1999, the board of education — then dominated by conservative Republicans — voted to reject evolution as a scientific theory and erased most references to it from the state curriculum.

Faced with criticism from around the nation, the state's voters changed the makeup of the board the following year, and the policy was reversed.

"After that, people in Kansas felt as if the conservative right had reached its apex," said Allan Cigler, a professor of political science at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. "People were wrong. The far right was just waiting for the next issue to rally around."

It came in 2004, with the debate over gay marriage. Evangelical ministers from some of the Midwest's largest churches mobilized their congregations and encouraged them to head to the polls. (This spring, Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved a far-reaching ban on gay marriage.)

The churches also kept an eye on seats that could be politically helpful on the state board of education, said the Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, Kan.

"We encouraged people to elect a conservative school board" to revive the evolution debate, Fox said. "It was a piece of cake. It was such a low-flying election, no one was paying attention."

Last spring the 6th District seat on the board — which then was evenly split between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans and Democrats — emerged as vulnerable.

The incumbent, moderate Republican Bruce Wyatt of Salina, was not a strong favorite in the mostly rural region that covers 17 counties.

One point of voter concern was evolution: While campaigning, Wyatt had noted that a routine review of the state's science standards would be held in 2005 and that he supported leaving the standards alone.

Martin disagreed. She is proud of her faith. She believes God created her and all mankind. It's a conviction shared by many in this agricultural town.

The only office that Martin, a teacher for 30 years, had ever held was treasurer of her college sorority. When a fellow teacher suggested she run against Wyatt, Martin said, she was skeptical.

But after meeting with conservative and religious leaders, who were looking for another Republican candidate to upset Wyatt, she changed her mind.

"I prayed, and God helped me decide. Suddenly, I was traveling all over the state, talking to people," Martin said. "I kept running into strangers who were working on behalf of my campaign."

Martin won the August primary with more than 60% of the vote. She ran unopposed in November. Now, she is at the center of Kansas' latest debate over the teaching of evolution.

This year a 26-member team of doctors, professors and schoolteachers studied the state's science standards and wrote a 107-page proposal, suggesting that the curriculum remain largely unchanged.

But in March, eight people on that committee submitted a 19-page minority report to the state education board, suggesting that teachers discuss alternative theories with their students.

In a crowded meeting hall across the street from the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 100 onlookers and members of the news media listened as the first of the hearing's 23 expert witnesses explained why the theory of evolution was flawed.

Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.

Afterward, she was curious and confused.

"I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?"

That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.

"If you want to know about science, ask a scientist. If you want to know about faith, ask a minister," said Robert Hagen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas. "If I were to go into that hearing and tell them why the 'science' of intelligent design is wrong, I'd have to get into such detail that most people would just glaze over."

Although the issue has yet to be decided, some teachers said they have seen subtle changes in student behavior.

"We're just getting to evolution now, and I have one student who puts his head down on his desk to show he's not paying attention," said Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kan., about 20 miles southwest of downtown Kansas City, Mo. "Others say they're not comfortable. It's very difficult, because you spend months and months gaining their trust to even broach the subject, and now they're shutting down."

There is a growing sentiment that, no matter what is said during the hearings, the board of education has already decided how it will vote.

"I respect all viewpoints and I will listen to their ideas," Martin said this week. "But I don't see me changing my mind."

Times researcher John Beckham in Chicago contributed to this report.


Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/evolutionisntanaturalselectionhere).


Dems Booted From N.C. Church Over Politics

2 hours, 9 minutes ago

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A pastor of a small Baptist church led an effort to kick out church members because they didn't support
President Bush, members said.
ADVERTISEMENT

The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest.

"It's all over politics," said Selma Morris, the church's treasurer. "We've never had a pastor like that before."

Pastor Chan Chandler had told the congregation before last year's presidential election that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen.
John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said Lorene Sutton, who said she and her husband were voted out of the church this week.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."

Morris said some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October.

Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS that the actions were not politically motivated.

North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Meek said.


Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/church_politics).

Supreme Court Ruling 1 (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/507/)
Supreme Court Ruling 2 (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/epperson.html)
Supreme Court Ruling 3 (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/207/)
Supreme Court Ruling 4 (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/107/)

Source (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html).

Scopes Trial (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm).

Eighty years and what progress have we made??

[DrunkCajun]

Here's my question for Kansas--which religion are they going to require be taught as part of science, and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?

Why do some people insist on mixing their religion with politics? Are we really that against a secular state?

Funny thing is we're out promoting secular democracy in the Middle East, and yet they pick up the paper and see us doing the opposite here at home. Great example we're setting. Bah. Ireland is looking nicer and nicer every day.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Here's my question for Kansas--which religion are they going to require be taught as part of science, and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?


I think that ID is a fairly far reaching notion, that would have to underpin any religion that assents to a creator.

[Sage the Mage]

"We're just getting to evolution now, and I have one student who puts his head down on his desk to show he's not paying attention," said Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kan.,
I don't know about you, but I slept in biology class too.

I think that ID is a fairly far reaching notion, that would have to underpin any religion that assents to a creator.
Teach philosophy as an elective in school.

[Valas Azuviir]

*Activating snarky answer mode*

Here's my question for Kansas--which religion are they going to require be taught as part of science,


The one they support, most likely going to be Methodist if my reading of this place is anything to go by. Source (http://listingskansas.com/Society/Religion/Christian/).

Could be Catholic as well.
Source (http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm).


and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?

They'll get burned at the stake for being heretics.


Why do some people insist on mixing their religion with politics?


Because they feel the need to tell others what to do, because they know better than anyone else what is wrong and right and people need to be saved from themselves. Freedom of Will?? Irrelvant.


Are we really that against a secular state?


You aren't, they are. You will either conform or get burned at the stake.


Funny thing is we're out promoting secular democracy in the Middle East, and yet they pick up the paper and see us doing the opposite here at home. Great example we're setting. Bah. Ireland is looking nicer and nicer every day.

Middle east project isn't about secular democracies, it's about installing friendly regimes. Unfortunately, most of the native religions aren't exactly friendly towards the US, so hence the move to secular "democracies", if those people could be forced to convert to the "true" religion without launching WW3, then this would be done in a hearbeat.

*De-activating snarky answer mode*

Case you haven't guessed it, I'm not particularly fond of folks like that. I hold them in as much disdain as I do the Mullah's of Iran or the Afghani Taliban or even the KKK. If these folks had their way, we'd be right back in the Dark Ages with them in control.

It's folks like that who make me question whether or not we're even going to survive the next 200 years as a species, or that we'll go the way of the dinosaur, with the sole difference being. The Dinosaurs didn't kill themselves off by being stupid.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It's folks like that who make me question whether or not we're even going to survive the next 200 years as a species, or that we'll go the way of the dinosaur, with the sole difference being. The Dinosaurs didn't kill themselves off by being stupid.

Questions like those exist by means of the thinking you've demonstrated above. The crux of the argument is an assertion made that evolution is the only model taught in schools. This is a true statement - evolution is taught as the primary model to answer the question "where did we come from". You have erred in assuming that this question was not based on objectivity, but rather a partisan religious attack. A model of ID is also extremely relevant to be taught in the classroom, alongside evolution. For my part, I don't see their incompatibility. In this case, those arguing for ID happened to be Christians. As a philosopher, I would insist that ID be taught in the system as well, as children have a right to know ALL of the options. From my perspective, reason leads us inexorably to intelligent design. One need not profess a particular religious creed in order to draw that conclusion. This issue is not about church and state, but about intellectual honesty and integrity in the education system.

[Apollo]

I guess I had the privilege of being taught ID since I went to a catholic high school. I agree that alternative theories should be available because like AoA said, we have a right to know all the options. However, it is important to separate ID with evolutionary theories as ID cannot be studied in an objective, systematic way. Also, the intended interpretation of creationist theories can be disputed; people two thousand years ago had a different way of analysing and absorbing information to us.

If schools in certain states do begin to teach theories of intelligent design along side evolutionary ones, undoubtedly this will be taught from a christian aspect on creationism. If people have a right to know all of the options however, then creationist theories from all religions should be taught... I certainly know that I would have been much more interested in my religious education lessons if we had been learning about gnosticism. But then you have to look at the schools curriculum from a realistic view - there is simply not enough time to teach alternative theories. This does not only pertain to religious alternative theories as well, for example, as well as learning about global warming, we would learn about global dimming as well. I think an intellectual integrity can be maintained be simply making such theories available to be learned outside of the classroom - those who are interested will take it upon themself to learn these things and benefit from the knowledge.

[Valas Azuviir]

Questions like those exist by means of the thinking you've demonstrated above. The crux of the argument is an assertion made that evolution is the only model taught in schools. This is a true statement - evolution is taught as the primary model to answer the question "where did we come from". You have erred in assuming that this question was not based on objectivity, but rather a partisan religious attack. A model of ID is also extremely relevant to be taught in the classroom, alongside evolution. For my part, I don't see their incompatibility. In this case, those arguing for ID happened to be Christians. As a philosopher, I would insist that ID be taught in the system as well, as children have a right to know ALL of the options. From my perspective, reason leads us inexorably to intelligent design. One need not profess a particular religious creed in order to draw that conclusion. This issue is not about church and state, but about intellectual honesty and integrity in the education system.

ID is not a science, so it doesn't belong in a science class.
And in case you missed it, Mrs. Martin mentioned in the Article, decided to run for office, because God helped her decide, and because she disagrees with evolution and believes the Bible to be right. If that's not the equivalent of a partisan religious attack, than I guess the threat of ex-communication against Gallileo Gallilei wasn't one either.

ID rebuttal (http://www.talkdesign.org/articles.html)
Evolution, Age of the Planet etc (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html)
Creationisms arguments rebutted (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

[Mastgrr]

Intelligent Design isn't science, it's philosophy.

However. This whole ordeal about teaching creationism in schools instead of evolution isn't about it at all. It's about crowd control. It's about trying to plant the seeds of hate against scientists. Creationists are never going to prove to scientists that evolution is wrong.

What the creationists are trying to do is trying to pick political fights where "average" people who believe in the idea of that you should teach all theories versus the intellectual class, aka the scientists. If you start to question scientists regarding this, they will eventually pull rank on you. "Look, I have a PHD. I'm a scientist. And I know right from wrong because I'm an intellectual." That is backlash gold for creationists.

This isn't about creationism. This isn't about evolution. This is just a battle in the war against science and scientists.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

ID is not a science, so it doesn't belong in a science class.


The problematic enters the picture when evolution is projected as being *the* method of mankind's proliferation and existence. This is connected with an ideology of origins. The problem is that ID is excluded. If science as you regard it can only deal with concrete proofs, it should not maintain the notion that evolution is the cause and continuation of life, as that has just about as much "proof" as ID, from your perspective.


And in case you missed it, Mrs. Martin mentioned in the Article, decided to run for office, because God helped her decide, and because she disagrees with evolution and believes the Bible to be right. If that's not the equivalent of a partisan religious attack, than I guess the threat of ex-communication against Gallileo Gallilei wasn't one either.


I had attempted to steer you towards objective foundations for the argument. In this case, Mrs. Martin has about the same basis for objectivity as those "scientists" who boycotted the event. Bringing an ad hominem into the argument does nothing to further it. Re-read what I posted earlier, about what's truly at stake in this. It's not about religion, although there are proponents who would base their views on it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What the creationists are trying to do is trying to pick political fights where "average" people who believe in the idea of that you should teach all theories versus the intellectual class, aka the scientists.


I have no trouble with evoltion whatsoever, but I do have issues when the conclusions drawn from it favor one side, with an ungrounded denial of the other. For my part, I would say that evolution and science can only lead one towards an ID perspective. (Evidential power of beauty by Thomas Dubay).

[Mastgrr]

If science as you regard it can only deal with concrete proofs, it should not maintain the notion that evolution is the cause and continuation of life, as that has just about as much "proof" as ID, from your perspective.Science is built up on that a theory can change if new knowledge is acquired. This is impossible with Intelligent Design because it involves something (God) that is the absolute answer to everything.

No matter how many times you try to wrap it around in any shape or form, Intelligent Design isn't science and thus doesn't belong in science class.

[DrunkCajun]

AoA, you have been warned more than once about posting twice in succession. Use the edit button. Those two posts were less than 5 minutes apart. Don't make me remind you again.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Science is built up on that a theory can change if new knowledge is acquired. This is impossible with Intelligent Design because it involves something (God) that is the absolute answer to everything.


It does not start with God as a premise, but rather a conclusion. Remeber also, that philosoply gives science its rules, as with logic.


No matter how many times you try to wrap it around in any shape or form, Intelligent Design isn't science and thus doesn't belong in science class.

I agree that ID is not science, and thus should not be in a science class. However, there is an issue in that the idea that science can provide exact proofs of the source and continuation of life. The conclusion is drawn that: if evoltion, than there must be no designer. This issue is problematic. As such, while ID need not be taught within the cirriculum of a science class, it should be notified as a possible conclusion of science, much like an atheist would draw from his/her understanding of scientific findings. Both are conclusions that are not directly drawn from said content.



AoA, you have been warned more than once about posting twice in succession. Use the edit button. Those two posts were less than 5 minutes apart. Don't make me remind you again.

Mastgrr's post appeared at the same time mine went up. I have been attending to the rules since they were updated. No need to brandish the hammer :p

[Valas Azuviir]

The problematic enters the picture when evolution is projected as being *the* method of mankind's proliferation and existence. This is connected with an ideology of origins. The problem is that ID is excluded. If science as you regard it can only deal with concrete proofs, it should not maintain the notion that evolution is the cause and continuation of life, as that has just about as much "proof" as ID, from your perspective.


The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory on how species came into being, how they ended up looking the way they do now etc etc, that is out there and which is subsequently supported by something like 98% of the scientific community (1% margin of error). It therefore belongs in a Science Class. In that sense, it's no different from the theory of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic fission etc. Or are you claiming, like those folks are that somehow evolution is special and unlike all those other theories is wrong and should therefore be criticized??

Also, ID is not Science and does therefore not belong in a Science Class.
It's like teaching a recipe for Sushi in a French Language Class. It might be fun, but Sushi has nothing to do with the French Language. And teaching recipes how to make it should therefore not be dealt with in a French Language class.



I had attempted to steer you towards objective foundations for the argument. In this case, Mrs. Martin has about the same basis for objectivity as those "scientists" who boycotted the event. Bringing an ad hominem into the argument does nothing to further it. Re-read what I posted earlier, about what's truly at stake in this. It's not about religion, although there are proponents who would base their views on it.

Eh, you may believe that it's not about religion, that doesn't mean that this is the case however. Anyone who's even remotely familiar with the crowd who is pushing for this, knows that it is about religion. How they object to the notion that humans and primates can have a common ancestor (course most of those folks think that evolution says that humanity is descended from monkeys, while the theory of evolution does no such thing.). How they object to the notion that the Earth is several billions year old, as opposed to 6000. They can't stand the fact that their Holy Book cannot be read literally and as the absolute truth. Thus negating their belief that somehow they are special and the Chosen ones.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory on how species came into being...


Evolution theory is not a theory of how humanity "came into being" (or any species, for that matter, since it does not treat of the "source"), but rather the only scientific proof we can attain (and this is still being developed) is a chronological development. This does not speak of origins. Scientists are not being true to their vocation when they make that leaping assertion.


Also, ID is not Science and does therefore not belong in a Science Class.


I made no argument that it should (I noted that in my reply to Mastgrr back there, in case you may have missed that O.o).


Anyone who's even remotely familiar with the crowd who is pushing for this, knows that it is about religion.


Do they know that, or is it their interpretation?


How they object to the notion that humans and primates can have a common ancestor (course most of those folks think that evolution says that humanity is descended from monkeys, while the theory of evolution does no such thing.). How they object to the notion that the Earth is several billions year old, as opposed to 6000. They can't stand the fact that their Holy Book cannot be read literally and as the absolute truth. Thus negating their belief that somehow they are special and the Chosen ones.

Let's remove ourselves from such drivel, and attempt to get somewhere with the content at hand plzkthx.

[Glurin]

Evolution theory is not a theory of how humanity "came into being" (or any species, for that matter, since it does not treat of the "source"), but rather the only scientific proof we can attain (and this is still being developed) is a chronological development. This does not speak of origins. Scientists are not being true to their vocation when they make that leaping assertion.

Exactly. People like to forget exactly what the theory of evolution is and start makeing assumptions. There is absolutly nothing in evolution that is mutualy exclusive with religion. That is unless you are disputing the ultra-literal interpritation that God took a lump of dirt and made man in the form he is today. Of course, I guess that is trumped by the "If God is almighty, then he could have created the world five minutes ago." card.

Well, anyway, evolution is just about how things seem to have gone from point A to point B. But just because a cookie was made from eggs and flour doesn't mean it happened all by itself. Stateing such as fact spits in the face of science and reason.

[DrunkCajun]

Exactly. People like to forget exactly what the theory of evolution is and start makeing assumptions. There is absolutly nothing in evolution that is mutualy exclusive with religion.

Agreed, but there certainly is something against teaching religion in public schooling systems. Leave religious theories to Sunday school and let the public education system focus on things that have been developed scientifically.

[neosonichdghg]

That is unless you are disputing the ultra-literal interpritation that God took a lump of dirt and made man in the form he is today.

All right, I know I said I wouldn't mess with religious debates, but I have a real problem with this. The thing is, when the Bible is figurative it's obvious. Like the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. When it's literal, it's obvious. Like the verse that starts off "There will be a great earthquake". When the Bible says that God took a lump of dirt, that seems pretty literal. I mean, how many interpretations of that are there? Breathed life...all right, that probably doesn't literally mean that he blew air into dirt. But there's no reason to believe it means anything like "He guided the development of the species for millions of years". It means he made it alive.

Okay, I'm done.

Um, did my avatar just screw up again?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Agreed, but there certainly is something against teaching religion in public schooling systems. Leave religious theories to Sunday school and let the public education system focus on things that have been developed scientifically.

..But we just finished establishing that ID is not about religion - only that most of its adherents also assent to Christianity.

When the Bible says that God took a lump of dirt, that seems pretty literal. I mean, how many interpretations of that are there? Breathed life...all right, that probably doesn't literally mean that he blew air into dirt. But there's no reason to believe it means anything like "He guided the development of the species for millions of years". It means he made it alive.


Being formed from dirt is a reference to the fact that we are part of the cosmos, as our bodies are parts of the material components which make up the universe. THe breath of life however is our share in the life of God, who creates and sustains life.

[Incite_Riots]

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."

Wow. Mr Retard there does not even know his history.

[DrunkCajun]

only that most of its adherents also assent to Christianity.

And use it as their reasoning for teaching ID to begin with. Far too many people cite the "Christian nature" of our country as the reason ID should be taught in schools.

[Sage the Mage]

Wow. Mr Retard there does not even know his history.
Well duh, it said retired science teacher, not history teacher.

..But we just finished establishing that ID is not about religion - only that most of its adherents also assent to Christianity.
Then...what is it about?

[PlagueBearer]

Wow. Mr Retard there does not even know his history.

Well, this darn well leads me into my contention. Because, like it or not, America was founded on Christianity; the truths that we hold to be self evident rely on the concept of the Creator, like it or not.

There is a very dangerous idea circulating in America today. It's a misinterpretation of the phrase "seperation of church and state". Certain people claim that this is meant to protect the state from the church. That's bunk. I don't want a Godless state, and neither do you. And neither did our Founding Fathers. It was atheism and pseudo-science that let Hitler kill 3,000,000 people without his nation so much as blinking an eye. The doctrine of "seperation of church and state" was meant to protect the Church from the State, not vice versa; you are priviledged to live in a nation that has no State religion, where the government will not order you in your faith. This new and dangerous movement is on the verge of making Atheism our state religion, toting "seperation of church and state" as its banner, tearing down religious icons and molesting ceremonies of state to remove God.

It's a democracy. You dictate the character of your government. But beware: if you dictate Atheism to your government, it will not be long before the lens turns the other way and the government is dictating it back.

Seperation of Church and State is to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around.

[neosonichdghg]

AoA, How can the concept of "part of the cosmos" fit in with the verse about returning to dust? It's not like we're going to become more physical or coporeal when we die, is it? Actually, the part that defines us leaves the physical realm altogether. So, if being made of dirt refers to being made of material components, why does that verse say we will return to dust and not leave it for good?

[DrunkCajun]

Well, this darn well leads me into my contention. Because, like it or not, America was founded on Christianity; the truths that we hold to be self evident rely on the concept of the Creator, like it or not.

There is a very dangerous idea circulating in America today. It's a misinterpretation of the phrase "seperation of church and state". Certain people claim that this is meant to protect the state from the church. That's bunk. I don't want a Godless state, and neither do you. And neither did our Founding Fathers. It was atheism and pseudo-science that let Hitler kill 3,000,000 people without his nation so much as blinking an eye. The doctrine of "seperation of church and state" was meant to protect the Church from the State, not vice versa; you are priviledged to live in a nation that has no State religion, where the government will not order you in your faith. This new and dangerous movement is on the verge of making Atheism our state religion, toting "seperation of church and state" as its banner, tearing down religious icons and molesting ceremonies of state to remove God.

It's a democracy. You dictate the character of your government. But beware: if you dictate Atheism to your government, it will not be long before the lens turns the other way and the government is dictating it back.

Seperation of Church and State is to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around.

You do realize that the day the public education system starts teaching a certain religious belief is the day the government no longer is without an official religion. That's the first step in the direction of a government which dictates our religion to us.

Personally, I'd rather err on the side of religious freedom and keeping the politicians the hell out of my religious beliefs than gamble with my religious freedom to have children indoctrinated with religion in our public school system. If I want my children to have a religious upbringing, that's my prerogative, not Washington's, sorry.

[Valas Azuviir]

Evolution theory is not a theory of how humanity "came into being" (or any species, for that matter, since it does not treat of the "source"), but rather the only scientific proof we can attain (and this is still being developed) is a chronological development. This does not speak of origins. Scientists are not being true to their vocation when they make that leaping assertion.


Guess you missed the memo on reclassifying dogs as a subset of the grey wolf then. Dogs and the grey wolf differ by 0.02% in their mitochondrial DNA, now what was considered the closest relative of the grey wolf, the coyote differs as much a 4%

So selective breeding by humans combined with the natural interbreeding with wild wolves lead to the eventual formation of the various dog breeds that we now have. Their alterations fall within the scope of the theory of evolution, the changes undergone meet the predictions set out by the theory. So your claim with regards to how the theory of evolution doesn't deal with how species came into being is a false one.


I made no argument that it should (I noted that in my reply to Mastgrr back there, in case you may have missed that O.o).


I was still writing my own response at the time that you were answering him.


Do they know that, or is it their interpretation?


Nice try with the semantics, but rather pointless. The people pushing ID are not doing so, because they deem it to be a scientific breakthrough which is getting a raw deal. But because it allows them to attack the theory of evolution, which offends their religious sensitivities.

They are the same crowd behind the Young Earth theorists, who attack the field of geology for claiming that the Earth is several billion years old.

It is about religion to them, and how they feel that science is attacking the validity of their particular religion.

So what about those scientists who support it??
a) In every field you've got crackpots, some of the supporters fall into this category.
b) Some let their religious views blind them to the scientific proof available. (Einstein comes to mind with his God doesn't play dice comment, with regards to the issue of quantum physics.) (I can at least sympathize with this group.)
c) And then there's the third group. The sell outs, who for some nice big funding, tenure etc, are quite willing to tell their hosts anything they want to hear, regardless of how little their conclusions have to do with actual scientific research.

Even those opposed to their activities know that this is about religion, hence their boycot. Heck, the first pro-ID "witness" said as much in the article.


"Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is in our schools," said William Harris, a chemist who was the first witness to speak Thursday on behalf of changing the state's curriculum. "This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."


These are the same groups who think that homosexuality is a sin and a choice. Regardless that more and more scientific research is showing that it's not a choice., but simply a natural occurence. Example (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/homosexual_brains), example (http://www.soulforce.org/main/evidence.shtml)

These are the same groups who call homosexuality and bisexuality unnatural and that it only occurs with humans. Regardless of the scientific data which shows that it's also found with animals. Example (http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27742), example (http://www.grohol.com/psypsych/Homosexuality_in_animals)

As much as you may want this issue to be about Science and science alone. It's not. It's the same Religion vs Science we saw with Gallileo, and countless other scientists who said things the Church didn't appreciate way back when.

Oh and before you ask, yes, Homosexuality and evolution can be squared away. Population control and survival of stronger gene selections can be root causes for the evolutionary use of homosexuality and why it still exists.


Let's remove ourselves from such drivel, and attempt to get somewhere with the content at hand plzkthx.

You think it drivel, I think it pertinent. *shrugs*



Wow. Mr Retard there does not even know his history.


That's Mrs. actually.

And as for religion and science being at odds or complimantary.. Rather depends if you are a literalist or more liberal in leaning like this (http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/contents.html) chap.

People may believe whatever they want to believe as far as I'm concerned, unless they start pestering others with their religious views and/or when it gets in the way of scientific development and discourse.

And unfortunately this is very much the case right now in the US, with the "Conservative" "Religious" Right doing everything they can to reshape society in their image, regardless who they have to trample to achieve that. Words like seperation of Church and State are anathema to them. If given half the chance, than it wouldn't surprise me one damned bit if they turned the US in a theocracy with them at the helm.

[PlagueBearer]

You do realize that the day the public education system starts teaching a certain religious belief is the day the government no longer is without an official religion.

Of course I realize that; and the day that public education starts teaching atheism is the day America starts swallowing fascism wholesale.

[Sage the Mage]

Well, this darn well leads me into my contention. Because, like it or not, America was founded on Christianity; the truths that we hold to be self evident rely on the concept of the Creator, like it or not.

Really the only guy I can think of would be Adams, and even then he's a congregationalist. Then again, he was rather important. Then again, so was Jefferson.

There is a very dangerous idea circulating in America today. It's a misinterpretation of the phrase "seperation of church and state". Certain people claim that this is meant to protect the state from the church. That's bunk. I don't want a Godless state, and neither do you. And neither did our Founding Fathers.
But surely you'd agree they didn't want a bias towards any religion?

It was atheism and pseudo-science that let Hitler kill 3,000,000 people without his nation so much as blinking an eye.
Hitler was not an atheist.

It's a democracy. You dictate the character of your government. But beware: if you dictate Atheism to your government, it will not be long before the lens turns the other way and the government is dictating it back.

Seperation of Church and State is to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around.
The question becomes, what do you do to ensure that nothing recieves any bias?


Of course I realize that; and the day that public education starts teaching atheism is the day America starts swallowing fascism wholesale.
Ok if you're going to make a broad generalization. Its COMMUNISTS who have atheism as the state religion.

[Incite_Riots]

Well, this darn well leads me into my contention. Because, like it or not, America was founded on Christianity;


No, it was not. The United States was founded on concepts such as freedom of religious belief, and fair representation for those who are taxed. Ironically enough we now have more religious freedom in the United Kingdom which does have a state religion than you do in the United States. When I visit the US there is no way I would dare tell anyone of my religious beliefs, especially in the current climate of fear and fanaticism. Granted the Founding Fathers were likely thinking of Abrahamic religions and not atheism or non-Abrahamic religions, however their sense of fairness and freedom should reflect in modern society, but sadly those tenants are becoming somewhat lost.

As for a separation of church and state, this is an essential concept which is a cornerstone of democracy. Without such separation we run the risk of ending up with a similar situation in which Afghanistan found itself in not too long ago under the Taliban.

Oh, and atheism has no place in the mechanism of the state either; the state is (should) there to administer a free and fair society in which people of all races, creeds and belief can live life free of the bigotry which the Founding Fathers were seeking to escape.

Separation of church and state is to protect the state from the churches AS WELL as the churches from the state; it is also there to protect the people from the persecution of fanatics that often manage to dictate the policy of churches.

[Eiger]

Hehe - you guys are still arguing about creationism vs. evolution? Way too funny.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And use it as their reasoning for teaching ID to begin with. Far too many people cite the "Christian nature" of our country as the reason ID should be taught in schools.

Yes, to them it's about religion. However, I have thus far been providing its objective validity as part of cirriculum.

Guess you missed the memo on reclassifying dogs as a subset of the grey wolf then. Dogs and the grey wolf differ by 0.02% in their mitochondrial DNA, now what was considered the closest relative of the grey wolf, the coyote differs as much a 4%

So selective breeding by humans combined with the natural interbreeding with wild wolves lead to the eventual formation of the various dog breeds that we now have. Their alterations fall within the scope of the theory of evolution, the changes undergone meet the predictions set out by the theory. So your claim with regards to how the theory of evolution doesn't deal with how species came into being is a false one.


You no doubt misunderstood me when I explained "coming into being". Glurin understood it pretty well however. Evolution, while it can discuss a chronology, cannot discuss the **ultimate** origins of life. Trace it back to the source - as a science, it cannot go beyond that which can be analyzed. As such, positing ID as a possible explanation would be appropriate, alongside the current trend to believe it "all came from nowhere".


Nice try with the semantics, but rather pointless. The people pushing ID are not doing so, because they deem it to be a scientific breakthrough which is getting a raw deal. But because it allows them to attack the theory of evolution, which offends their religious sensitivities.

They are the same crowd behind the Young Earth theorists, who attack the field of geology for claiming that the Earth is several billion years old.

It is about religion to them, and how they feel that science is attacking the validity of their particular religion.

So what about those scientists who support it??
a) In every field you've got crackpots, some of the supporters fall into this category.
b) Some let their religious views blind them to the scientific proof available. (Einstein comes to mind with his God doesn't play dice comment, with regards to the issue of quantum physics.) (I can at least sympathize with this group.)
c) And then there's the third group. The sell outs, who for some nice big funding, tenure etc, are quite willing to tell their hosts anything they want to hear, regardless of how little their conclusions have to do with actual scientific research.

Even those opposed to their activities know that this is about religion, hence their boycot. Heck, the first pro-ID "witness" said as much in the article.


As I mentioned to DC, it doesn't matter the motive. Conversely, you have these "scientists" speaking against religion. There is bias on both sides. My argument concerns intellectual consistency.


These are the same groups who think that homosexuality is a sin and a choice. Regardless that more and more scientific research is showing that it's not a choice., but simply a natural occurence.


Homosexuality per se is not sin, but rather what one wishes to do with it - same with any heterosexual.


As much as you may want this issue to be about Science and science alone. It's not. It's the same Religion vs Science we saw with Gallileo, and countless other scientists who said things the Church didn't appreciate way back when.


The issue is strictly about the content. Agenda is about religion or a lack thereof. Being consistent emphatially demands ID to be made part of cirriculum, regardless if one is religious or not. Everything else associated with this is conjecture.



Neo - Being "part of the cosmos" merely referred to the fact that our bodies are composed of the components of the world, if that makes sense. Post again if you need more clarification.

[MixedVariety]

Neo - Being "part of the cosmos" merely referred to the fact that our bodies are composed of the components of the world, if that makes sense. Post again if you need more clarification.

No.
You had it right the first time. Life is comprised more of the most common materials in the Universe, than those most common on planet Earth. Though there are similarities, they are not identical lists by a long shot.

[PlagueBearer]

No, it was not.

Yes, it was. We hold these truths self evident -- that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that men are set apart from nature by the God of the same. When we said Nature's God, we sure as hell weren't talking about some Wiccan concept.

You can quibble about it all you like, but the United States of America was founded on Christian ideals. Now, it was NOT established as a Christian state. You are correct in that the Founding Fathers beleived that their Republic be open to all faiths, a beleif that now forms the core of American beleif.

Separation of church and state is to protect the state from the churches AS WELL as the churches from the state.

As I stated before, a common misconception and a dangerous one at that. You clearly beleive that atheism should not be the state religion. I don't think there's a single sane person in America who thinks it should be. But when you allow atheists to dictate policy, when you think that they are justified to tear down 'offensive' artifacts from state buildings and censor words in ceremonies of state, you are slowly but surely paving the road to an atheist state. Religion belongs in government. Without that abiding faith in a Creator, without trust in God, a government and a people become unaccountable. It's happened before.

Even the greatest statesman in American history knew that. He wrote that Declaration. And he was by many accounts an atheist himself.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No.
You had it right the first time. Life is comprised more of the most common materials in the Universe, than those most common on planet Earth. Though there are similarities, they are not identical lists by a long shot.

Yes you're right, I erred in using the term "world". We're in agreement however.

[Incite_Riots]

As I stated before, a common misconception and a dangerous one at that.

It's not a common misconception, it's common sense; amazingly most people have sensibly picked this one up. "Government by the people and for the people" - God does not and should not come into it as God is not acknowledged by everyone. If we had proof of God's existence then it'd be a different story. There's a really simple concept here you are just not grasping: the moment the state espouses a religion or belief the way is opened for persecution of those who do not hold that belief, and that is happening every day.



Without that abiding faith in a Creator, without trust in God, a government and a people become unaccountable. It's happened before.

Blatant rubbish. The state is (should be - the reality is that it is not in any western democracy at this time, state sponsored religion or not) accountable to the electorate. You seem to think that morality and religion are somehow dependant upon one and other; well just as some truths are self evident, so are some lies and this is one of them.



But when you allow atheists to dictate policy, when you think that they are justified to tear down 'offensive' artifacts from state buildings and censor words in ceremonies of state, you are slowly but surely paving the road to an atheist state.

Despite my faith I do find these articles of faith embedded in state apparatus extremely offensive. No one of any creed, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Wiccan, or of any other belief should have to recite a prayer they do not believe, be judged in the name of another person's religion, or be the subject of a faith they do not believe; this is exactly what happens when the state becomes tied to any kind of faith. This is not about your so called "atheist state" this is about a state that does not have the historical bigotry of religion associated with it - and that includes the bigotry that atheism on occasion carries. The state has to be neutral in these matters, without such neutrality people's freedoms cannot be observed.

You seem to forget what many of the historical immigrants were fleeing from in Europe, the persecution of them due to their faith and by starting a life in the new world they were taking up the opportunity to live their lives in a way the could not under governments in Europe because those governments sponsored one belief over others. That way of life is "freedom", and that's why religion has no part in government.

[DrunkCajun]

Yes, it was. We hold these truths self evident -- that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that men are set apart from nature by the God of the same. When we said Nature's God, we sure as hell weren't talking about some Wiccan concept.

Some revisionist history there, eh?

You clearly beleive that atheism should not be the state religion. I don't think there's a single sane person in America who thinks it should be.

Where'd you get atheism from? The whole point of this is that the government should stay out of religion PERIOD. No religious beliefs should be pushed by the government. At all.

Nope.

Not one. Not atheism, wiccan, Islamism, Christianity, Judaism, nope. Nothing. That leaves us all free from an influence and able to worship what we want how we want. No government redefining religion for us. Just freedom to worship what we want and how we want (within legal boundaries, of course--the "Rastafarian" church doesn't quite fall into that definition of freedom).

But when you allow atheists to dictate policy, when you think that they are justified to tear down 'offensive' artifacts from state buildings and censor words in ceremonies of state, you are slowly but surely paving the road to an atheist state. Religion belongs in government. Without that abiding faith in a Creator, without trust in God, a government and a people become unaccountable. It's happened before.

Um, when? The only atheists I can really think of that have caused so much trouble are Castro and Stalin. Other than those two most of the real nasties in history had some religion or another "guiding" their actions. Like your Hitler example. He was a Christian.

PS--who in our government is dictating policy? No one dictates in this country, if you are an American. It's a democracy. Issues are voted on. And last I checked we didn't have too many atheists in Congress. We have people from all different religions. Are you proposing we kick Lieberman outta government? He's not a Christian, after all.

Even the greatest statesman in American history knew that. He wrote that Declaration. And he was by many accounts an atheist himself.

There we go with revisionism again.

Remind me to transcribe an article from this week's Economist about a "religious" guy over in Uganda. He's doing all sorts of commendable things in his fight against the "atheist" government.

What's my point? That religion does not automatically protect us from the horror of humanity. In fact, in many cases it just motivates it further. Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama, hell, even Pinochet--all religious men.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Not one. Not atheism, wiccan, Islamism, Christianity, Judaism, nope. Nothing. That leaves us all free from an influence and able to worship what we want how we want.

Not that I'm getting involved in this aspect of the thread (religion and the state), but there's a teensy inconsistency here.

A governemnt can be secular and free from active promotion, or even quiet promotion of a given religion. However, the ethics and morals of those in power and the structure of the government are underpinned by a certain belief paradigm. Ultimately, the system will allow fertile grounds for the worship of one type of religion, and detract from certain others.

[DrunkCajun]

Not that I'm getting involved in this aspect of the thread (religion and the state), but there's a teensy inconsistency here.

A governemnt can be secular and free from active promotion, or even quiet promotion of a given religion. However, the ethics and morals of those in power and the structure of the government are underpinned by a certain belief paradigm. Ultimately, the system will allow fertile grounds for the worship of one type of religion, and detract from certain others.

You raise a valid point, but I think it's no more substantive than arguing that our society's morals are based in religion. They are, but that doesn't mean we need religion to have morals. So while I see your point, I'd argue that as long as the government is flexible and reasonable about it legislating, it need not detract from reasonable religious practice. Again, you're going to find that it bother some groups not to be able to, for example, take peyote tabs during religious ceremonies or smoke pot to worship, but the vast majority will benefit from a secular system. Only those who feel the need to force their religion upon others will truly be impacted in a negative way.

Using the argument that the government is going to infringe on someone anyway to justify an argument against secular governments in general is kind of silly. If it's going to infringe upon some people, why guarantee that it infringes upon more?

At any rate, these are the reasons for the flexibility of the system, at least in the US. That's why the courts exist--they interpret the law and make judgements based on what they think is and isn't within reason, and do their best to accomodate as many as possible.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Indeed, one does not need religion for morals, as they can be discovered in reason (alot of morality comes from metaphysics). A religion is also based on, in part, from morals found through reason.

[DrunkCajun]

Indeed, one does not need religion for morals, as they can be discovered in reason (alot of morality comes from metaphysics). A religion is also based on, in part, from morals found through reason.

Never thought the day would come, but I think we're agreeing.

Drinks are on me! :drink: :buddies:

[MixedVariety]

Never thought the day would come, but I think we're agreeing.

Drinks are on me! :drink: :buddies:

Unusual indeed; he agreed with something I said earlier, also, with absolutely no backslap. What's with that?

And please, let's try to keep at least one OTF on the dry side, shall we? Lest you be needing some schooling on the morality of drinking.

[DrunkCajun]

To each their own! I'll have a beer, you can have water and drive me home. :happy34:

[MixedVariety]

To each their own! I'll have a beer, you can have water and drive me home. :happy34:

Iced Tea will do, with lemon. Or grapefruit juice. Chocolate milk.

Anyway, that is actually something I'm sort of proud of. There's always going to be someone sober and level-headed around in any party I'm at, and believe me: it's come in handy often for driving and trouble-shooting.

I'd be happy to drive you home. In your car, just in case I drive a bit recklessly by accident (naturally) and upset the tum-tums.

[DrunkCajun]

Hah. Unless I drink myself to death I don't get sick. Only time in memory that I ever got sick in a car was the day that I decided it was a good idea to get up at 2 pm and head to my friends' house at 3, where we had "breakfast" by playing flip cup until 8 pm. Drinking+no food=bad.

It's the morning after that's harsh on the tum tums.

That said, I have leather seats, so yeah. Works for me.

[PlagueBearer]

Some revisionist history there, eh?

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

I think every American should have read it through at least once.

Where'd you get atheism from? The whole point of this is that the government should stay out of religion PERIOD. No religious beliefs should be pushed by the government. At all.

Where do you draw the line? Is it wrong for a judge or senator to beleive in God? Of course not. Is it wrong for them to state their beleifs? Is it wrong for that judge or senator to cite that beleif as their cause for a decision? Is it wrong for them to make their decisions based on those beleifs? May they write their beleifs? May they post those beleifs where they choose? May they adorn their homes in the manner that suits those beleifs? How about their offices, or places of work? May they teach their children those same beleifs? May they present those beleifs to others? May they present those beleifs to you? Your spouse? Your parents? Your children?

No government redefining religion for us. Just freedom to worship what we want and how we want.

I couldn't agree with you more; religious freedom is one of the protection's afforded to a free people. But an atheist government is not required to obtain that.

(I think perhaps the problem arises in my use of the term "atheist government". You have said that government ought to endorse "no religion"; if we purge the government itself OF religion, that religion-less government is what I term an "atheist" government.)

Um, when? The only atheists I can really think of that have caused so much trouble are Castro and Stalin. Like your Hitler example. He was a Christian.

Who's the revisionist again?

http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf

[Even the greatest statesman in American history knew that. He wrote that Declaration. And he was by many accounts an atheist himself.]

There we go with revisionism again.

I think maybe we mean different things by "revisionism". Because I certainly am not revising anything out of history. I'm not claiming that the Holocaust never happened, that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon, that Napoleon was killed by the Danish, or anything else unsubstantiated. I'm pointing out that even Thomas Jefferson, atheist though he may have been, recognized religion's role in government.

[DrunkCajun]

For kicks, let me spell this out for ya about Hitler.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-and-religion.html

If you need more I'll find them. Hitler was a Christian. He even disliked atheists.

Oh, and don't patronize me. I read the Declaration frequently. Don't start talking to me about how our government works, I studied it for four years. I do know how it's run.

Where do I draw the line? When someone makes a decision that impacts someone else based on something that is not a societal moral, but a religious one. For example punishing homosexuals because the Bible says they're sinners.

Hey, I've got an idea. How about you take your theocracy and start your own country? See how it goes and how long it lasts.

[Sage the Mage]

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
I think every American should have read it through at least once.

Yes, natural rights, but that's not the same as a government founded on a single religion. Again, its all about Locke, Montesquieu, and Britain itself for direct inspiration. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property ya know.

Where do you draw the line? Is it wrong for a judge or senator to beleive in God? Of course not. Is it wrong for them to state their beleifs? Is it wrong for that judge or senator to cite that beleif as their cause for a decision? Is it wrong for them to make their decisions based on those beleifs? May they write their beleifs? May they post those beleifs where they choose? May they adorn their homes in the manner that suits those beleifs? How about their offices, or places of work? May they teach their children those same beleifs? May they present those beleifs to others? May they present those beleifs to you? Your spouse? Your parents? Your children?
Public places? No. No ten commandments posted in a building unless in a history class or something where its pertinent.

(I think perhaps the problem arises in my use of the term "atheist government". You have said that government ought to endorse "no religion"; if we purge the government itself OF religion, that religion-less government is what I term an "atheist" government.)
Again, the key is to not have a bias towards any. Obviously the politicans could have a bias, just not the law.

http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf
Interesting, except Christians persecute Christians all the time and it makes no mention of Hitler being an atheist. Hitler was all about total control of Germany, so in reality, I'd expect him to off anyone that defied him. Then there's also this (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html)
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Course I've never read Mein Kampf, but a google search yeilded that quote so yeah. There's always Italy too, you know another Fascist country.

[Glurin]

Where'd you get atheism from? The whole point of this is that the government should stay out of religion PERIOD. No religious beliefs should be pushed by the government. At all.

The only way for the government to remain neutral on the subject is to include religious elements. There is absolutly no way around it. The government shouldn't push a certain religion, but neither should it push atheism, which is exactly what you are doing when you try to purge religion from government.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Unusual indeed; he agreed with something I said earlier, also, with absolutely no backslap. What's with that?


Well up to this point I suppose you guys thought I was just in this to mudsling.


*Edit* - Glurin rocks.

[DrunkCajun]

I think the problem here is that you all are insisting anything that isn't religious is automatically atheist.

Here's the definition I'm going off of: Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

A government is not a person who takes communion and either believes or doesn't believe in God. A government is not a human who needs to be baptized and needs to attend confession. The day a government stands up and makes a decision for itself independent of the people who work to make it a government, is the day I'll agree that a government can have a religious belief all to itself.

And AoA, why do you have to be offended by everything?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And AoA, why do you have to be offended by everything?

WTF?? Seriously.. you're just scary.. :scared:

[DrunkCajun]

WTF?? Seriously.. you're just scary.. :scared:

RAWRR!

Seriously man, I feel like every time I make a joking comment to try and lighten the mood around here you come back with an uberserious comment on how I've somehow offended your sensibilities. I certainly don't mean to be offending you, and don't really think, for example, that I ever implied you were "just here to mudsling." I honestly was interested in the opinions of an intelligent individual who is clearly well-informed and has strong feelings about the topic...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well its another thing altogether to come around and spam out this general statement that I'm "offended by everything", that really is quite scary. I believe levity is best left for light threads, and sincere discussion for these ones. THere are those who would inject a bit of levity and humor into an intense discussion, but I think such breaks only indicate a failure to gain enlightenment through reasoning (hence an assent to a lower order of satisfaction). But w/e, what do I know :whistle:

[DrunkCajun]

THere are those who would inject a bit of levity and humor into an intense discussion, but I think such breaks only indicate a failure to gain enlightenment through reasoning (hence an assent to a lower order of satisfaction).

Sweet. So I'm dumb now. I assent to a lower order of satisfaction. :happy34:

*sigh*

[MixedVariety]

Well its another thing altogether to come around and spam out this general statement that I'm "offended by everything", that really is quite scary. I believe levity is best left for light threads, and sincere discussion for these ones. THere are those who would inject a bit of levity and humor into an intense discussion, but I think such breaks only indicate a failure to gain enlightenment through reasoning (hence an assent to a lower order of satisfaction). But w/e, what do I know :whistle:

I have to say, AOA, that I'm not sure what it is that DC thinks you were offended by this time around. Your replies seemed fairly benign for the most part. This time around.

I will also interject, however, that levity has its place even in the most intense and volatile discussions. Gentlemen will stop a heated debate before it gets out of hand, light up a cigar, pour a brandy and talk about the weather for a few minutes before jumping back into the fray. They say things like "please", and "thank you", and "I agree to disagree", and other pressure-relieving tactics that may seem non-sequitur at the time but which a true debator knows full well. I'm quite sure that is the approach DC takes in his debating; it is not stupidity or the inability to cognize, as you seem to imply.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm quite sure that is the approach DC takes in his debating; it is not stupidity or the inability to cognize, as you seem to imply.

Merely stated an "idea". No biggie, I was just shocked at that "offense at everything comment".

[PlagueBearer]

For kicks, let me spell this out for ya about Hitler.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-and-religion.html

If you need more I'll find them. Hitler was a Christian. He even disliked atheists.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-hitler.html

The day a government stands up and makes a decision for itself independent of the people who work to make it a government, is the day I'll agree that a government can have a religious belief all to itself.

People are and must be free in their religion.

The government is made of people.

Hey, I've got an idea. How about you take your theocracy and start your own country? See how it goes and how long it lasts.

Now, now, that's not at all what I'm advocating. I don't want a theocracy. But what I DON'T want is an atheocracy.

We're really on the same side here, and we're dickering over semantics and historical hoop-di-doos. We both beleive in religious freedom.

Now, we disagree in how to acheive that end and safeguard it. You advocate a Godless (new word: more acceptable?) government, one therefore unbiased and unrooted in the religions it governs. I beleive in a government as free from religious persecution as the people it governs.

I see the purging of God from ceremonies of state as detrimental to the religious freedom of Americans.

I mean, He was put into the Pledge of Allegiance as a protection against atheism. Isn't taking Him out an endorsement of atheism?

:scratch:

Maybe I'm not stating this as clearly as I could.

[Sage the Mage]

I mean, He was put into the Pledge of Allegiance as a protection against atheism. Isn't taking Him out an endorsement of atheism?
Or, is keeping it in an endorsement of theism?

Anyone want to elaborate on why the words "under God" were put in place in the '50s? History wise that is.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Its true that the affirmation or rejection of God is unavoidable. There is no neutral ground here, nothing that can please both atheists and theists.

[Glurin]

Anyone want to elaborate on why the words "under God" were put in place in the '50s? History wise that is.

Only thing I remember clearly about it at the moment was someone saying that it was put in the pledge as an anti-communist political statement. Not too sure if its accurate though. That might have been the same someone who said "In God We Trust" was put on our money durring one of the world wars, which I know is false and have solid proof to that effect.

I'll have to disagree with AoA though. There is in fact neutral ground, but there will always be a few whiners on both sides. One side saying religion should only be practiced in a dark, private place, if at all, and the other saying we should have national prayers or something.

Lets try the subject from a slightly different angle. The phrase is "Seperation of church and state." Not "...religion and state." Its quite clear that the thing the framers were worried about was 1. a state church, and 2. the persecution of religious people. It is also quite clear that they believed religion should have some influence in the government.


I think the problem here is that you all are insisting anything that isn't religious is automatically atheist.

Here's the definition I'm going off of: Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Unfortunatly for you, that is the exact definition we are "going off of". When you try to purge religion from government, you are in fact denying the existance of God. It is forcing athiesm down other peoples' throats. How could it not be when you deny religion a voice?

You can include religious elements and not be religious. But the denial of religious elements is the definition of atheist.

[DrunkCajun]

Only thing I remember clearly about it at the moment was someone saying that it was put in the pledge as an anti-communist political statement. Not too sure if its accurate though. That might have been the same someone who said "In God We Trust" was put on our money durring one of the world wars, which I know is false and have solid proof to that effect.

I believe that is correct. The Eisenhower government added it in 1954 as a reaction to the communists.

I'll have to disagree with AoA though. There is in fact neutral ground, but there will always be a few whiners on both sides. One side saying religion should only be practiced in a dark, private place, if at all, and the other saying we should have national prayers or something.

I don't care where you practice religion. Preach it on television, knock on my door and tell me about it, just don't make laws out of it. Is that really so hard? Does that relegate it to some deep, dark place?


Unfortunatly for you, that is the exact definition we are "going off of". When you try to purge religion from government, you are in fact denying the existance of God. It is forcing athiesm down other peoples' throats. How could it not be when you deny religion a voice?

How is not mentioning God forcing atheism down people's throats? Do you call to complain when Sportscenter doesn't open with a prayer? Do you feel that your workplace is forcing you to be atheist because it doesn't hold a morning prayer ceremony?

Why should the government be forced to openly advocate one particular brand of belief, I ask? You do realize that not all religions out there believe in the one Catholic God whose son is Jesus Christ? So when the government starts advocating that openly, it starts stomping on those who don't believe that. Is it so hard to fathom that fact?

PS--I'm not proposing we purge religion from government. I'm proposing we keep the two comfortably separate. Whether you acknowledge it or not, not branding the government with a giant cross and not reading Biblical passages in between laws being debated in Congress isn't somehow going to be attacking your religion.

You can include religious elements and not be religious. But the denial of religious elements is the definition of atheist.

You can really keep twisting this however you like. Atheism as I see it is an active belief. A government cannot hold a belief. A government can endorse a particular belief or set of beliefs through its actions, but it can also not endorse any. If not endorsing your particular belief system is somehow offensive to you, I think you're a bit too sensitive. Does not walking around telling everyone about Jesus Christ all day long make me an atheist? Does the fact that I choose to keep my religious beliefs to myself make me an atheist?

Now, if you're backing off your argument, which that statement might be interpreted to say, then perhaps we're starting to agree. I never said the government shouldn't contain religious elements. Hell, the vast majority of people who make up the government are religious. I'm merely saying that the government should not pass laws that it plucks out of their interpretation of the Bible and force them upon everyone. It's one thing to pull a universal concept like thou shalt not kill. That's not what I'm talking about, because that's something the majority of our country would agree with. Its when the religious individuals in government ignore our country's majority opinion and legislates based on their beliefs, against the will of our nation, that it becomes a problem. It also probably isn't the most advisable thing in the world for a judge to wave the Christian flag in a courtroom. It just opens up the door for a Muslim or Jew to face trial and call for a mistrial after feeling discriminated against. Note the difference--a courtroom without any one particular brand of religion, or a courtroom with one single interpretation of a religion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'll have to disagree with AoA though. There is in fact neutral ground, but there will always be a few whiners on both sides. One side saying religion should only be practiced in a dark, private place, if at all, and the other saying we should have national prayers or something.


It was in reference to the existence of God, not religious practise, where there indeed can be "neutral ground".

[PlagueBearer]

You can quibble about it all you like.

You can really keep twisting this however you like.

Well! I say we've rather called a truce, then, haven't we? :happy34:

[Glurin]

How is not mentioning God forcing atheism down people's throats? Do you call to complain when Sportscenter doesn't open with a prayer? ..............................................Whether you acknowledge it or not, not branding the government with a giant cross and not reading Biblical passages in between laws being debated in Congress isn't somehow going to be attacking your religion.

And that, Cajun, is exactly the problem. Athiests see any mention of God whatsoever as an endorsment and start sueing people. Then they use seperation of church and state as an excuse if they don't win at something.

A government cannot hold a belief. A government can endorse a particular belief or set of beliefs through its actions, but it can also not endorse any.

By denying religious elements in government, they are endorsing atheism. Its the freakin definition of atheism. Your definition of atheism! Thats the issue I have with it. Your overcorrecting. You don't have to ban the bible or ridicule senetors who happen to be devout christians to achieve seperation of church and state.

Its when the religious individuals in government ignore our country's majority opinion and legislates based on their beliefs, against the will of our nation, that it becomes a problem.

If this is a reference to the gay marraige ban, it appears that banning gay marraige was indeed the will of our nation.

It also probably isn't the most advisable thing in the world for a judge to wave the Christian flag in a courtroom.

I want you to ask yourself this question. Are they waveing the christian flag, or did the seperation zealots wave it for them? You need to watch out for that.

[Valas Azuviir]

Yes, to them it's about religion. However, I have thus far been providing its objective validity as part of cirriculum.


:rolleyes:
Again, ID is not science as therefore has no place in a science class as part of its curriculum. So the supposed objective validity you have shown*, is irrelevant. It's like sticking how to make sushi lessons into a French language class.

You may have missed it, but what this debate was about, (and I should know considering I'm the one who started this thread) is the attempt to stick a religiously backed non-scientifically based interpretation into science classes

So you can keep on talking about how ID should be valid, till the cows come home, but it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

*: And to be honest all I've seen is a subjective attempt to rationalize why it should be included.


You no doubt misunderstood me when I explained "coming into being". Glurin understood it pretty well however. Evolution, while it can discuss a chronology, cannot discuss the **ultimate** origins of life. Trace it back to the source - as a science, it cannot go beyond that which can be analyzed. As such, positing ID as a possible explanation would be appropriate, alongside the current trend to believe it "all came from nowhere".


I didn't misunderstand you, I disagreed with your phrasing and assessment.
You stated: Evolution theory is not a theory of how humanity "came into being" (or any species, for that matter, since it does not treat of the "source"), but rather the only scientific proof we can attain (and this is still being developed) is a chronological development. This does not speak of origins

I subsequently pointed out we can explain how the animals known as dogs came into being, how the various variations fall within the parameters laid out by the evolution theory.

And that is just one example how a species can come into being as explained by the evolution theory. Evolution also explains the various sorts of dinosaurs and their predecessors etc. The point where it supposedly stops is just prior to the formation of the single celled organisms.

And it should stop there, considering that evolution only deals with living creatures. And how those single celled organisms came into being?? That's part of biochemistry classes, not regular biology ones. To each class sort its own curriculum. You don't teach economics during a chemistry class, you don't teach Swahili during a philosophy class, you don't teach how to cook during a math class, and you don't teach ID in a science class.


As I mentioned to DC, it doesn't matter the motive. Conversely, you have these "scientists" speaking against religion. There is bias on both sides. My argument concerns intellectual consistency.


Motive doesn't matter?? :lol:
The set-up for this: let's insert ID into science classes, is a court room.
Motive is very much an issue in a court room. And those scientists who are speaking against ID in the articles I posted, are not speaking against religion and how it should be abolished or altered to fit their views. They are speaking against people who are trying to have scientific facts altered to better fit their religious views.

The scientiffic community doesn't both with the question of does God exist or not. There isn't any proof either way to come to a satisfactory conclusion based upon scientific methodology. That's why science in general is indifferent to religion. Religion has nothing to do with how scientists do their work, or at least it isn't supposed to have anything to do with it.


Homosexuality per se is not sin, but rather what one wishes to do with it - same with any heterosexual.


Ah, yes. The if you're not married then it's a sin routine. And because gays cannot marry in the US, it's therefore a sin. And if one were to look at the counrtries where gays can marry, then one can wave it away by saying because its not a ceremony done by a church, that it's a sin. And the list just goes on and on.

So much for the love thy fellow man and judge not lest thou be judged yourself stuff.


The issue is strictly about the content. Agenda is about religion or a lack thereof. Being consistent emphatially demands ID to be made part of cirriculum, regardless if one is religious or not. Everything else associated with this is conjecture.


Considering I'm the one who started this debate, I'd think that I've got a slightly better idea what the issue of this thread is then you. And consistency has nothing to do with teaching ID in science classes. It's like trying to claim that you have to be consistent by teaching how to make sushi in a Spanish language class, just because a school has cooking classes as well as it does foreign language classes. If these folks want to teach ID during Comparative Religion or Philosophy or even Sociology/Anthropology classes, then I've got no issue with that. That's where ID belongs, it doesn't have any business being in a science class however.

Or, is keeping it in an endorsement of theism?

Anyone want to elaborate on why the words "under God" were put in place in the '50s? History wise that is.

Added to distinguish the US from the USSR, and to satisfy the right wing religious crowd.

Pledge was rewritten a number of times, but at no time did it have the under God section before the 1950s, which is rather remarkable, considering its author was a minister.

Pledge History 1 (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm)
Pledge History 2 (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499)
Pledge History 3 (http://www.flagday.org/Pages/PledgeHistory.html)


And for the latest news round up on the articles I originally posted.

Pastor got sacked (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-sullivan13may13,1,1614646.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california).

Evangelist against ID in Kansas debate (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/05/08/scientist_puts_faith_in_evolution_debate/)
Op/Ed on the debate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700943.html)
Changing what science is, per the design of the ID crowd. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050515/ap_on_sc/kansas_evolution;_ylt=AmLRuSqRJ21Oy_qME2a1l1ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2aWxpajE2BHNlYwNzYw--)
Reading the material at hand, why bother when you have a prior agenda. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/13/kansas/)

ID vs Evolution spreads. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050513/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_1)

Oh and before anyone says that the ID support is now at nearly 400 scientists. Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18), which supports evolution is at 540, and remember that probably only 1% of the entire scientific population is named Steve.

[DrunkCajun]

And that, Cajun, is exactly the problem. Athiests see any mention of God whatsoever as an endorsment and start sueing people.

Perhaps because it is an endorsement of a monotheist belief, no matter how neutral an endorsement. For someone who believes in multiple gods or none at all, having the authorities talk God to them can be problematic when they realize that that same authority a hell of a lot of power over them.

You don't have to ban the bible or ridicule senetors who happen to be devout christians to achieve seperation of church and state.

Who the hell said anything about ridiculing anyone or banning anyone???? This is my problem with a lot of Christians who start aruging this. Anything that isn't an open endorsement and prayer on the Hill is suddenly a mockery and an attack on their beliefs. I don't recall ever mentioning a need to ridicule or ban anything. I just don't think we should let anyone use the Senate as a pulpit from which to preach their religion.


If this is a reference to the gay marraige ban, it appears that banning gay marraige was indeed the will of our nation.

Did I say gay marriage? I don't seem to recall saying gay marriage. I think I deliberately left it general. If the majority feels a certain way about an issue, great. If a vocal minority feels a certain way about an issue and they declare anyone who disagrees with them sinners, heathens, and subject to the eternal wrath of God for disagreeing with them and turn that into law, not great. I think that was all I said.


I want you to ask yourself this question. Are they waveing the christian flag, or did the seperation zealots wave it for them? You need to watch out for that.

Er? All I'm saying is that if I'm Muslim and get stopped for a traffic violation, show up for my day in court in a courtroom with a giant crucifix on the wall and paintings depicting the 10 commandments, and the judge opens with a prayer asking that Jesus Christ look after my soul, I'm going to feel real uncomfortable. Not to mention wondering if I'm really getting a fair deal and unbiased judge.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Again, ID is not science as therefore has no place in a science class as part of its curriculum. So the supposed objective validity you have shown*, is irrelevant. It's like sticking how to make sushi lessons into a French language class.

You may have missed it, but what this debate was about, (and I should know considering I'm the one who started this thread) is the attempt to stick a religiously backed non-scientifically based interpretation into science classes

So you can keep on talking about how ID should be valid, till the cows come home, but it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


It doesn't matter who started the thread lol.. Be pleased that I've come here to correct your tunnelvision on the matter. You'd also be well advised to re-read the thread in its entirety. The issue was about "cirriculum in schools", not merely in the science class. I've admitted that evolution is fine on its own in a science class, but that the conclusion that is drawn from evolution - concerning man's origins, is unscientific. Does that belong in a science class?? :scared:

*: And to be honest all I've seen is a subjective attempt to rationalize why it should be included.

No really lol.. I think its the other way around. For my part, I was finished with this thread, having explained the nuances of the argument. You come back here kicking up the sand once again. In doing so, you've accomplished nothing that would add to the initial argument.


I didn't misunderstand you, I disagreed with your phrasing and assessment.
You stated: Evolution theory is not a theory of how humanity "came into being" (or any species, for that matter, since it does not treat of the "source"), but rather the only scientific proof we can attain (and this is still being developed) is a chronological development. This does not speak of origins

I subsequently pointed out we can explain how the animals known as dogs came into being, how the various variations fall within the parameters laid out by the evolution theory.


That's not coming into being you fool! :lol: Did I not explain that one also? To "come into being" is to be created ex nihilo - its an existential thing. Species may arise and fall through evolution, but that does not speak of their ultimate origins - ie., how it all started.


And that is just one example how a species can come into being as explained by the evolution theory. Evolution also explains the various sorts of dinosaurs and their predecessors etc. The point where it supposedly stops is just prior to the formation of the single celled organisms.


Evolution does not explain, nor cannot explain, the creation of organisms - only their mutibility.


And it should stop there, considering that evolution only deals with living creatures. And how those single celled organisms came into being?? That's part of biochemistry classes, not regular biology ones. To each class sort its own curriculum. You don't teach economics during a chemistry class, you don't teach Swahili during a philosophy class, you don't teach how to cook during a math class, and you don't teach ID in a science class.


Ok, let's have a new class on "theory of origins", that draws from some of the other classes.


Motive doesn't matter?? :lol:
The set-up for this: let's insert ID into science classes, is a court room.
Motive is very much an issue in a court room. And those scientists who are speaking against ID in the articles I posted, are not speaking against religion and how it should be abolished or altered to fit their views. They are speaking against people who are trying to have scientific facts altered to better fit their religious views.


Well right now I think your motive for posting is just to annoy me, but I post for the objective reason of presenting the issues correctly. For the sake of consistency, all sides of a given issue must be presented to the public, which includes ID as well as evolution. If X or Y person is a religious fanatic, so be it.


The scientiffic community doesn't both with the question of does God exist or not. There isn't any proof either way to come to a satisfactory conclusion based upon scientific methodology. That's why science in general is indifferent to religion. Religion has nothing to do with how scientists do their work, or at least it isn't supposed to have anything to do with it.


I agree. Yet, a qualifiying cirriculum should be created to ensure that the "conclusions drawn from scientific inquiry" are well within their limits. Otherwise, you'll have idiots saying "uhh.. God doesnt exist, science says everything evolved..". That's pretty damn unscientific.


Ah, yes. The if you're not married then it's a sin routine. And because gays cannot marry in the US, it's therefore a sin. And if one were to look at the counrtries where gays can marry, then one can wave it away by saying because its not a ceremony done by a church, that it's a sin. And the list just goes on and on.

So much for the love thy fellow man and judge not lest thou be judged yourself stuff.


'Scuse me, but where TF did this come into the picuture on "your thread on school cirriculum"? Talk about hypocracy, telling me what to post and or not post about a given issue lol..


Considering I'm the one who started this debate, I'd think that I've got a slightly better idea what the issue of this thread is then you.


LOL what a well timed statement, right after your little tangent there on gay marriage heh.. Not only that, but that's about the biggest ad-hominem fallacy I've seen to date here, and that's saying alot lol. I'll go start a thread on auto mechanics now, and tell the guys at the garage that I pwnXXor them at mechanics.

Anyway, no need to continue quoting, I'd just be repeating myself. I pray you won't make the same mistake yourself.

[Sage the Mage]

Ok, let's have a new class on "theory of origins", that draws from some of the other classes.
Sure, but I'd expect that the same people would be complaining.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sure, but I'd expect that the same people would be complaining.


They shouldnt, really, so long as the cirriculum included an unbiased, objective presentation of the content. It may be difficult however for teachers cuz such content so easily lends itself to bias. This notion was probably considered, and thus discarded in the name of peace. Yet another artifice of the decline of culture..

[Sage the Mage]

They shouldnt, really, so long as the cirriculum included an unbiased, objective presentation of the content.
That's why it would be complained about. When someone wants ID in schools taught with evolution, it isn't because they want an unbiased education.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's why it would be complained about. When someone wants ID in schools taught with evolution, it isn't because they want an unbiased education.

Well, my case was that all elements had to be there to offer an intellectually honest cirriculum.

[Valas Azuviir]

It doesn't matter who started the thread lol.. Be pleased that I've come here to correct your tunnelvision on the matter. You'd also be well advised to re-read the thread in its entirety. The issue was about "cirriculum in schools", not merely in the science class. I've admitted that evolution is fine on its own in a science class, but that the conclusion that is drawn from evolution - concerning man's origins, is unscientific. Does that belong in a science class?? :scared:


a) It's spelled curriculum, plural form is curricula, if you're going to act as if you're intellectually superior to people, then at least get such things correct.

b) The Issue at hand was the intrusion of Religion into Politics and Science, note that my initial post also contained a newsreport on how several Democrats were ejected from their congregation, because of who they voted for.

I subsequently posted a series of links, which contained decisions by the US Supreme Court which delineate the seperation between Church and State, which both the news articles I posted are seriously flaunting.

Care to try again to lecture me on what this thread is about??


No really lol.. I think its the other way around. For my part, I was finished with this thread, having explained the nuances of the argument. You come back here kicking up the sand once again. In doing so, you've accomplished nothing that would add to the initial argument.


c) It's called trying to bring the thread back to its original topic.
d) For all your acknowledgements that ID doesn't belong in a Science Class, at no time have you made any suggestions about which classes would be more suited to having it in its curriculum. Thus giving the impression, that despite your earlier disclaimers that ID doesn't belong in Science classes, you completely agree with the people pushing to have it included in Science classes anyway.


That's not coming into being you fool! :lol: Did I not explain that one also? To "come into being" is to be created ex nihilo - its an existential thing. Species may arise and fall through evolution, but that does not speak of their ultimate origins - ie., how it all started.


e) If you're going to start namecalling, then I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 1 (http://forums.worldofwar.net/rules/).
f) That's the problem with a lot of philosophy, it isn't always applicable to the real world. Prior to the domestication of the grey wolf and the subsequent breeding programs, there were no dogs. Nada zip. After said programs and the domestication, they came into being, whether or not this satisfies your definition of coming into being is fairly irrelevant.

Afterall, if I were to use your definition on the Bibilical Origin of Man, then that too cannot be called coming into being. Afterall, God didn't snap his fingers and hey presto man was created. He used building blocks which already existed. Literal reading would say dust, whereas a more allegorical reading, as you presented earlier would have it be cosmic components.

Ex nihilo means from or out of nothing, afterall. Emphasis on the nothing, so no dust or cosmic component. Nada, zip and zilch.


Evolution does not explain, nor cannot explain, the creation of organisms - only their mutibility.


It explains the creation of some organisms, though granted it does not answer the question on the single celled organism. But as stated before, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that pre-stage, that's the domain of biochemistry.




Ok, let's have a new class on "theory of origins", that draws from some of the other classes.


If you want to stick ID in there, and also have all the other views on origin presented, and not call it a science class, then I've got no issue with that.


Well right now I think your motive for posting is just to annoy me, but I post for the objective reason of presenting the issues correctly. For the sake of consistency, all sides of a given issue must be presented to the public, which includes ID as well as evolution. If X or Y person is a religious fanatic, so be it.

Think what you will. If you don't like this thread or what I have to say, then you need not respond.

Side note, using this argument, would you also support that the complete history of CIA support for Islamic "Freedom fighters" to be used in a trial against say Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban? If yes, then I've got a little less beef with your argumentation. If no.. Well.. The less said the better.



I agree. Yet, a qualifiying cirriculum should be created to ensure that the "conclusions drawn from scientific inquiry" are well within their limits. Otherwise, you'll have idiots saying "uhh.. God doesnt exist, science says everything evolved..". That's pretty damn unscientific.


If people wish to draw that false conclusion, then they're free to do so. No different from the right wing Conservative Christians who think that evolution equals man is descended from monkeys.

You'll always have people on both sides, who don't really listen to what's being said. I'm not sure that a class on: hypotheses of Origins will change that. I've got no issue with it being included as long as it meets the standards I outlined above. Don't call ID a science, have competing views, don't stick it in science classes.


'Scuse me, but where TF did this come into the picuture on "your thread on school cirriculum"? Talk about hypocracy, telling me what to post and or not post about a given issue lol..


As stated my intent for this post was the intrusion of religion into politics and science. Homosexuality and the views thereof is very much effected by all three. We've already seen how religious views in the US have effected the chances of the gay community to attain the right to civil marriages. In addition, the gay community is somewhat worried about the findings of Science that homosexuality is indeed natural and that it has zilch to do with choice, due to their fear that this will lead to a future, where gay children are aborted and thus lead to the eventual extermination of the gay population segment.

Though it has to be noted that this will put the right wing Conservative Christians in an interesting quandary with regards to the abortion issue and their opposition to it. Abortion is another topic where Science, Religion and Politics meet.


LOL what a well timed statement, right after your little tangent there on gay marriage heh.. Not only that, but that's about the biggest ad-hominem fallacy I've seen to date here, and that's saying alot lol. I'll go start a thread on auto mechanics now, and tell the guys at the garage that I pwnXXor them at mechanics.

Anyway, no need to continue quoting, I'd just be repeating myself. I pray you won't make the same mistake yourself.

If you wish to believe that you've dominated this debate,, by all means think so. Matters very little to me. My intent for this thread is rather different than what you think that it was. Partial rant, partial let's see if anyone agrees with me that the right wing Conservative Christians are trying to create a theocracy in the US, with them as the Chosen people, partial enlightening folks to the legal framework which is being ignored.

As for your prayer remark, I guess I could make a snarky retort. *shrugs* Fail to see the point though.

[Sage the Mage]

Well, my case was that all elements had to be there to offer an intellectually honest cirriculum.
To which I replied, the same people will complain. These people aren't pushing ID in order to promote a broader spectrum of learning.

On another note, I bet a geocentric universe sounded pretty nifty at one point.

[Glurin]

Perhaps because it is an endorsement of a monotheist belief, no matter how neutral an endorsement. For someone who believes in multiple gods or none at all, having the authorities talk God to them can be problematic when they realize that that same authority a hell of a lot of power over them.

And yet you wish to endorse atheism. Talk about your double standards....

This is my problem with a lot of Christians who start aruging this. Anything that isn't an open endorsement and prayer on the Hill is suddenly a mockery and an attack on their beliefs.

And the problem with atheists is that even a silent, private prayer is a mockery and an attack on their beliefs.

I just don't think we should let anyone use the Senate as a pulpit from which to preach their religion.

I agree. But that includes atheism, hence the dispute. Atheism is by definition, not something. So when you try to make government not-religion, you by definition make it atheist. Again, its overcorrecting that is the issue.

If a vocal minority feels a certain way about an issue and they declare anyone who disagrees with them sinners, heathens, and subject to the eternal wrath of God for disagreeing with them and turn that into law, not great.

As opposed to a vocal minority that feels a certain way about an issue and they declare anyone who disagrees with them irrational, unscientific, brainwashed morons subject to eternal ridicule and turn that into law?

Er? All I'm saying is that if I'm Muslim and get stopped for a traffic violation, show up for my day in court in a courtroom with a giant crucifix on the wall and paintings depicting the 10 commandments, and the judge opens with a prayer asking that Jesus Christ look after my soul, I'm going to feel real uncomfortable. Not to mention wondering if I'm really getting a fair deal and unbiased judge.

What I'm telling you is to watch out for things getting blown way out of proportion. A judge who decorates the courtroom with numerous extravigant religious symboles and opens court with prayers is a minister, which is inapropriate. A judge who prays and is a devout christian isn't. But the later can be made to look like the former if a third party waves the flag for them for whatever reason. Do you see the problem?

And would a Muslim be getting a fair deal if the judge was atheist?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

a) It's spelled curriculum, plural form is curricula, if you're going to act as if you're intellectually superior to people, then at least get such things correct.


H0w 480u7 1337 sp34k?


b) The Issue at hand was the intrusion of Religion into Politics and Science, note that my initial post also contained a newsreport on how several Democrats were ejected from their congregation, because of who they voted for.

I subsequently posted a series of links, which contained decisions by the US Supreme Court which delineate the seperation between Church and State, which both the news articles I posted are seriously flaunting.

Care to try again to lecture me on what this thread is about??


Naw, the first lecture was good enough. You may wish to go with the flow of the thread however, instead of chaining yourself back to your original notion, which you seem to have trouble getting past.


c) It's called trying to bring the thread back to its original topic.


I'd call it thread development, to which point the flow of the thread was argued for. You're just throwing a tantrum.


d) For all your acknowledgements that ID doesn't belong in a Science Class, at no time have you made any suggestions about which classes would be more suited to having it in its curriculum. Thus giving the impression, that despite your earlier disclaimers that ID doesn't belong in Science classes, you completely agree with the people pushing to have it included in Science classes anyway.


lol.. Did you actually read my post?? It's only been mentioned a few times that a separate class could be set up to deal with those theories. Even Sage pointed that out, and we're now discussing that point lol..


e) If you're going to start namecalling, then I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 1 (http://forums.worldofwar.net/rules/).


Perhaps you could brush up on your reading skills, like I pointed out above, and not take up arguments to have an intellectual pissing contest. You're just wasting your time, really. All you need to is reread the posts.


f) That's the problem with a lot of philosophy, it isn't always applicable to the real world.


Where does it come from then?


Prior to the domestication of the grey wolf and the subsequent breeding programs, there were no dogs. Nada zip. After said programs and the domestication, they came into being, whether or not this satisfies your definition of coming into being is fairly irrelevant.


Heh.. talk about apples and oranges.. Again thats not dealing with ultimate origins, but rather mutibility.


Afterall, if I were to use your definition on the Bibilical Origin of Man, then that too cannot be called coming into being. Afterall, God didn't snap his fingers and hey presto man was created. He used building blocks which already existed. Literal reading would say dust, whereas a more allegorical reading, as you presented earlier would have it be cosmic components.


Even that has a beginning.


Ex nihilo means from or out of nothing, afterall. Emphasis on the nothing, so no dust or cosmic component. Nada, zip and zilch.

It explains the creation of some organisms, though granted it does not answer the question on the single celled organism. But as stated before, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that pre-stage, that's the domain of biochemistry.


No science can ultimately answer that. In your last sentance you affirmed what I had said earlier about how evolution cannot rightly be posited by atheists in the denial of God.


If you want to stick ID in there, and also have all the other views on origin presented, and not call it a science class, then I've got no issue with that.


That was what I argued for.


Think what you will. If you don't like this thread or what I have to say, then you need not respond.


Sheesh.. you're the one who resurrected the thread.. :scratch:


Side note, using this argument, would you also support that the complete history of CIA support for Islamic "Freedom fighters" to be used in a trial against say Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban? If yes, then I've got a little less beef with your argumentation. If no.. Well.. The less said the better.


You lost me..


If people wish to draw that false conclusion, then they're free to do so. No different from the right wing Conservative Christians who think that evolution equals man is descended from monkeys.


Lay off stereotypes plz.


You'll always have people on both sides, who don't really listen to what's being said. I'm not sure that a class on: hypotheses of Origins will change that. I've got no issue with it being included as long as it meets the standards I outlined above. Don't call ID a science, have competing views, don't stick it in science classes.


That's fine.


As stated my intent for this post was the intrusion of religion into politics and science. Homosexuality and the views thereof is very much effected by all three. We've already seen how religious views in the US have effected the chances of the gay community to attain the right to civil marriages.


Yes, and in canada, segments of the bible are outlawed as hate literature. There will always be leverage in favor of one position over the other.


In addition, the gay community is somewhat worried about the findings of Science that homosexuality is indeed natural and that it has zilch to do with choice, due to their fear that this will lead to a future, where gay children are aborted and thus lead to the eventual extermination of the gay population segment.


lol.. Reading too much science fiction have we?


Though it has to be noted that this will put the right wing Conservative Christians in an interesting quandary with regards to the abortion issue and their opposition to it. Abortion is another topic where Science, Religion and Politics meet.


And so they should. They have to, really. All are intertwined, whether you like it or not. You can't really separate religion from science and politics, those three make up a trinity if you will. THere will ALWAYS be a form of religion (even if atheism), a form of scientific inquiry and expertise (as well as interpretation), and a form of politics, which draws on these.


If you wish to believe that you've dominated this debate,, by all means think so. Matters very little to me.


If I have dominated it, it's not without due qualification. Then again, it's got nothing to do with me, I've only served as a conduit for sound reasoning. It really should matter to you however, because you could learn a few things, instead of kicking against the goad.


My intent for this thread is rather different than what you think that it was. Partial rant, partial let's see if anyone agrees with me that the right wing Conservative Christians are trying to create a theocracy in the US, with them as the Chosen people, partial enlightening folks to the legal framework which is being ignored.


Ok, so you based an entire thread on your paranoid view that the US is creating a "theocracy" lol.. That's just about as paranoid as a culture that aborts gays, dont you think? :lol:

When I look out my window, and south of the border (I'm in Canada), I see no semblance of a christian culture. I see practical atheism. It is american culture. Christian is just a label, with its adherents forgetting the true power they're supposed to partake of. I don't know why you whine about a religious dictatorship, since that's the last thing that could ever happen to the US.


To which I replied, the same people will complain. These people aren't pushing ID in order to promote a broader spectrum of learning.


Beg your pardon, but WTF kind of difference does it make? Whatever motive they have in mind, you cannot change the objective reality of balancing the cirriculum for the kids.

[DrunkCajun]

And yet you wish to endorse atheism. Talk about your double standards....

Stop twisting my words and opinions, it's getting very tiresome.

And the problem with atheists is that even a silent, private prayer is a mockery and an attack on their beliefs.

I don't agree. Pray silently all day long. Pray privately all day long. What does this have to do with my government?

I agree. But that includes atheism, hence the dispute. Atheism is by definition, not something. So when you try to make government not-religion, you by definition make it atheist. Again, its overcorrecting that is the issue.

I see. So I'm supposed to surrender now and say, "you're right, tell you what, I see the error of my ways. let's declare it the United States of a Christian America." I still reject the notion that we only have two options--an "atheist, anti-Christian" option, or a bible-beating United States of a Christian American option. Is there no middle ground?

As opposed to a vocal minority that feels a certain way about an issue and they declare anyone who disagrees with them irrational, unscientific, brainwashed morons subject to eternal ridicule and turn that into law?

I see. So I'm doing that now? Because if not I'm not certain to whom you're referring.

What I'm telling you is to watch out for things getting blown way out of proportion. A judge who decorates the courtroom with numerous extravigant religious symboles and opens court with prayers is a minister, which is inapropriate. A judge who prays and is a devout christian isn't. But the later can be made to look like the former if a third party waves the flag for them for whatever reason. Do you see the problem?

See, again, you're taking what I'm saying and then running another 10 miles with it. Can you please show me where I said that the judge could not be a devout Christian and allowed to pray on his own time? I don't recall ever taking issue with that. My issue is when institutions of the government (ie, a courtroom) are abused and used as a mouthpiece for a person's personal religious beliefs. Can one not pray privately and still be capable of working in an office without murals of biblical scenes and giant crosses everywhere? Because if that is the case, then yes, I feel we should have an atheist government. If the only alternative in your eyes, is to brandish everything with symbols of a particular religion, I will certainly and strongly advocate against it. In fact, while there are few causes I would consider taking serious action in protest of, this is one of them. I don't want my government choosing a particular sect of religion to support and thus putting a chilling effect on the freedoms of all the others. Sorry.

If however, you're merely hyperbolizing and trying to take my statements and stretch them, perhaps you could stop doing so and we could have a debate.

And would a Muslim be getting a fair deal if the judge was atheist?

As fair a deal as he would from a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other judge. My problem comes into play when the judge uses their courtroom as a pulpit or a place of worship, adorning everything with reminders of his or her particular personal beliefs, and apply those beliefs over the laws of the nation in his or her decisions. Perhaps you could address this point this time rather than running off in another direction again?

[PlagueBearer]

I still reject the notion that we only have two options--an "atheist, anti-Christian" option, or a bible-beating United States of a Christian American option. Is there no middle ground?

Yes, there is. A government founded on freedom of religion, instilled with safeguards against atheism. Now, I don't mean that atheism is bad or even less valid than other religions, just that with it's absolutism and current rhetorical support we need to ensure that it doesn't dominate.

So you keep God in the pledge, you keep the Commandments in the courthouse. People keep beleiving in God, people keep not beleiving in God. The current system works pretty well as a middle ground. Let's just keep an eye on militant atheists and make sure they don't edge out the opposition. And if you like, we can keep an eye on militant theists, too, just to be fair.

But the ultimate solution is to let things be the way they are, keeping a lookout for people who would change things to support their way of doing things at the cost of other people's liberties. That's the middle ground.

[DrunkCajun]

Yes, there is. A government founded on freedom of religion, instilled with safeguards against atheism. Now, I don't mean that atheism is bad or even less valid than other religions, just that with it's absolutism and current rhetorical support we need to ensure that it doesn't dominate.

So you keep God in the pledge, you keep the Commandments in the courthouse. People keep beleiving in God, people keep not beleiving in God. The current system works pretty well as a middle ground. Let's just keep an eye on militant atheists and make sure they don't edge out the opposition. And if you like, we can keep an eye on militant theists, too, just to be fair.

But the ultimate solution is to let things be the way they are, keeping a lookout for people who would change things to support their way of doing things at the cost of other people's liberties. That's the middle ground.

Where's the middle ground for Muslims? Buddhists?

I take two issues with your middle paragraph. One, God was added to the pledge as a political move, not a religious one. So no, we don't need it there unless we're worried about Cuba encroaching on us. Two, why do we need to display a Christian monument such as the ten commandments in a courtroom? Why not keep things like references to God on the money, in our system, but not inject personal religious beliefs into something that is supposed to be neutral and fair to everyone, not just Christians?

[Sage the Mage]

Beg your pardon, but WTF kind of difference does it make? Whatever motive they have in mind, you cannot change the objective reality of balancing the cirriculum for the kids.
Sure, if they were trying to balance it.

[Glurin]

I see. So I'm supposed to surrender now and say, "you're right, tell you what, I see the error of my ways. let's declare it the United States of a Christian America." I still reject the notion that we only have two options--an "atheist, anti-Christian" option, or a bible-beating United States of a Christian American option. Is there no middle ground?

You obviously haven't actualy been reading anything I've said. I suspected as much earlier, but this confirms it.

Interestingly enough, you seem to be the only one who isn't getting the point. Are you just arguing to argue?

[PlagueBearer]

Where's the middle ground for Muslims? Buddhists?

Same middle ground. Freedom of religion, safeguards against the domination of any one over the others.

I take two issues with your middle paragraph. One, God was added to the pledge as a political move, not a religious one. So no, we don't need it there unless we're worried about Cuba encroaching on us.

What?

Two, why do we need to display a Christian monument such as the ten commandments in a courtroom?

The Ten Commandments are on display, in the case mentioned previously, as part of an exhibit showing the evolution of modern American law. Removing them would not only be a flagrant imposition of atheism in regard to the courts but also be re-writing history to suit those who do not beleive in God. The Ten Commandments clearly had an influence on the evolution of Law and morality, it's not even a subject for debate.

[Dementor]

Where do I draw the line? When someone makes a decision that impacts someone else based on something that is not a societal moral, but a religious one. For example punishing homosexuals because the Bible says they're sinners.

What's the difference between a "societal moral" and a "religious moral"?

Your example is a particuarly poor example.

For one, our laws don't punish homosexuals: anti-sodomy laws went away a while ago. I assume you are refering to the refusal of State Legislatures to change marriage to include homosexual unions.

I would note that while I'm strongly agnostic, I feel g-y marriage would damage society. In my opionion, any law banning homosexual marriage would be a societal law.

So where do YOU draw the line?

See, if you start EXCLUDING laws because they have religeous precedent, you basically exclude all law. "Thou shalt not kill" was a religeous law at one point to.

[Sage the Mage]

I'm strongly agnostic
Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Dementor]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

That's simply to say I'm not agnostic in the sense of "I think Christianity is mostly right" or "Islam seems to have alot of really good ideas."

I'm Agnostic in the sense that I don't think any faith has it even close to being right... and I'm not... simple (kindest word I could think of)... enough to proclaim that we know everything about everything and therefore there is no god (aka, atheist)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's simply to say I'm not agnostic in the sense of "I think Christianity is mostly right" or "Islam seems to have alot of really good ideas."

I'm Agnostic in the sense that I don't think any faith has it even close to being right... and I'm not... simple (kindest word I could think of)... enough to proclaim that we know everything about everything and therefore there is no god (aka, atheist)


Hehe, that was funny Sage, you do have your moments :p. I think Sage has a good point in that agnostic means having "no knowlege" (gnosis = greek for knowledge, knowing). It would seem that being "strongly agnostic" would be willed ignorance, but I know that's not what you're saying, Dementor.

Yet, it may be more accurate to say that Dementor strongly believes in, or holds X position, which is contrary to a given faith, by means of his strong opposition to these religions, for whatever reason.

[Dementor]

Hehe, that was funny Sage, you do have your moments :p. I think Sage has a good point in that agnostic means having "no knowlege" (gnosis = greek for knowledge, knowing). It would seem that being "strongly agnostic" would be willed ignorance, but I know that's not what you're saying, Dementor.

Yet, it may be more accurate to say that Dementor strongly believes in, or holds X position, which is contrary to a given faith, by means of his strong opposition to these religions, for whatever reason.

I find them equally likely to be wrong. I do not discount the possibility they might be right. The nature of the Universe (God?) is something we are not properly equpped to understand. Each "revelation" seems exacly as implausible as the next. I do not base my life, morals, or behavior on any religeon. I was not brought up with any religeon; it had no direct influence on the shaping of my moral code.

That said, I find myself in agreement with alot of "faith-based" morality. This is the point I make; it is impossible to separate religeous morality from societal morality because there is no difference.

Religion is a part of society. It makes rules for the good of society.

The Story of Soddom is a good example of exactly this: there was seen to be an unhealthy community. This society was unhealthy because of sexual behaviors outside the norm, such as homosexuality. God destroys the city to show that this is immoral behavior.

Now, whether you agree with this moral or not, clearly the purpose of this fable is to correct what the story-teller sees as a SOCIETAL ill. Reliegrion is used to get the point across.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I find them equally likely to be wrong. I do not discount the possibility they might be right. The nature of the Universe (God?) is something we are not properly equpped to understand. Each "revelation" seems exacly as implausible as the next. I do not base my life, morals, or behavior on any religeon. I was not brought up with any religeon; it had no direct influence on the shaping of my moral code.


That said, I find myself in agreement with alot of "faith-based" morality. This is the point I make; it is impossible to separate religeous morality from societal morality because there is no difference.


Honest statements. With reason we can discover objective morality, which is what you've pointed out so far, so faith based morality I would say is more reason based (morals were discovered by the greeks), but for some faith based, as they follow based on dogma if not solely by reason.

It's true that we're not fully equipped to know everything (we'd have to be God to do so), but some revelation is alot more plausible when it coincides with reason. However, the becoming God is a mystery, known to those who live the life in the spirit.


Religion is a part of society. It makes rules for the good of society.

The Story of Soddom is a good example of exactly this: there was seen to be an unhealthy community. This society was unhealthy because of sexual behaviors outside the norm, such as homosexuality. God destroys the city to show that this is immoral behavior.


That's certainly one way of looking at it. For my part, I take the story as God's mercy, that he would save the entire city for the sake of "one just man", which is a foreshadowing of the messiah.

[DrunkCajun]

What's the difference between a "societal moral" and a "religious moral"?

Your example is a particuarly poor example.

For one, our laws don't punish homosexuals: anti-sodomy laws went away a while ago. I assume you are refering to the refusal of State Legislatures to change marriage to include homosexual unions.

See, if you start EXCLUDING laws because they have religeous precedent, you basically exclude all law. "Thou shalt not kill" was a religeous law at one point to.

I walked away from this thread out of frustration, but need to correct a glaring error. Anti-sodomy laws were not done away with "a long time ago". In my own state of Virginia they were still in effect up until this past summer. That may be a long time ago for you, but in my book that's the very recent past.

And I never suggested excluding all laws because of religious precedent. You're taking one thing I said and stretching it the length of the planet. Most societal moral values are just that--societal. Most mirror religious morals, although it can be easily argued that such morals predated any one particular religion. Note that all major religious seem to share common moral themes. What I'm saying is that specifically Christian laws should be treated with skepticism. They infringe upon the rights of non-Christians, for one thing. Imagine a Christian equivalent of an Islamic law stating that all men must wear beards. Is this the sort of thing we wish to start accepting in the US? Or is Christianity somehow special and deserving of special treatment?

PS, to whoever questioned the political motives behind putting the word "God" into the pledge of allegiance, read back earlier in the thread, we went over it. If you still aren't convinced do some research on it, I'm really not up for googling it and sifting through links, again.

[MixedVariety]

You're taking one thing I said and stretching it the length of the planet.

I need clarification of this. Do you mean the circumference (40,008 km. polar, 40,076 km. equatorial) or the diameter (12,714 km. polar, 12,756 km. equatorial) or some other measurement I haven't considered? In a three-dimensional universe, where planets tend to be spherical in shape, it is difficult for me to determine how long the Earth is.

Not to mention the added difficulty of taking a thing that someone said and applying a measurement of length to that.

Yeah, I know this thread is about something else. This is what qualifies as comedic relief.

[Coltaine]

I need clarification of this. Do you mean the circumference (40,008 km. polar, 40,076 km. equatorial) or the diameter (12,714 km. polar, 12,756 km. equatorial) or some other measurement I haven't considered? In a three-dimensional universe, where planets tend to be spherical in shape, it is difficult for me to determine how long the Earth is.

Not to mention the added difficulty of taking a thing that someone said and applying a measurement of length to that.

Yeah, I know this thread is about something else. This is what qualifies as comedic relief.

I would think you should reread the post. he stated nowhere that with "the planet" he meant earth. So you should include (sum circumferences)/n in you calculations to get a general idear about what he was talking about.

[DrunkCajun]

:rant:

:teeth:

Damn you, MV! And I meant length, plain and simple! Circumference is for round things, silly!

[Raistlin Majere]

I walked away from this thread out of frustration, but need to correct a glaring error. Anti-sodomy laws were not done away with "a long time ago". In my own state of Virginia they were still in effect up until this past summer. That may be a long time ago for you, but in my book that's the very recent past.

Some states still have them, Tennessee (belt-buckel of the bible belt) still has them.

[PlagueBearer]

PS, to whoever questioned the political motives behind putting the word "God" into the pledge of allegiance, read back earlier in the thread, we went over it. If you still aren't convinced do some research on it, I'm really not up for googling it and sifting through links, again.

The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

It was the spring of 1954, and Congress had voted, after some controversy, to insert the phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance, partly as a cold war rejoinder to "godless" communism.

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/nov03/presence.html

In an effort to link national unity with opposition to “godless communism,” the Knights of Columbus (“Strong Right Arm of the Church”) campaigned to have the words “under God” added to the Pledge. This was around the same time, and for the same reason, that ”In God We Trust” was added to all money and made the national motto.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/pledgeandgod_2.htm

Wether or a not a person beleives this is correct for a government to do is up to them. But it is why they did it.

[Dementor]

Some states still have them, Tennessee (belt-buckel of the bible belt) still has them.

Federal Law trumps State Law here. There was a Supreme Court ruling on this in the 90's, rendering those laws totally invalid. They are still on the books only because there would be no point in taking time away from the legislature to remove a law that has no effect anyway.