PDA

View Full Version : Creationists Try 2 Destroy The Separation&Science



Gayle in MD
03-23-2011, 09:25 AM
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/9-bills-creationism-classroom


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
— By Josh Harkinson

| Wed Mar. 23, 2011 3:00 AM PDT


State governments are grappling with massive budget deficits, overburdened social programs, and of mountains of deferred spending. But never mind all that. For some conservative lawmakers, it's the perfect time to legislate the promotion of creationism in the classroom. In the first three months of 2011, nine creationism-related bills have been introduced in seven states—that's more than in any year in recent memory:



1. Texas

Legislation: HB 2454 would ban discrimination against creationists, for instance, biology professors who believe in intelligent design. Defending his bill, Texas state Rep. Bill Zedler told Mother Jones, "When was the last time we’ve seen someone go into a windstorm or a tornado or any other kind of natural disaster, and say, 'Guess what? That windstorm just created a watch'?"

Status: Referred to Higher Education Committee.



2. Kentucky

Legislation: The Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act (HB 169) would have allowed teachers to use "other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Kentucky already authorizes public schools to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." The state is home to the world-renowned Creation Museum and it may soon build the Ark Encounter, the world's first creationist theme park.

Status: Died in committee.



3. Florida

Legislation: SB 1854 would amend Florida law to require a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." In 2009, Florida state Sen. Stephen Wise, the bill's sponsor, rhetorically asked a Tampa radio host: "Why do we still have apes if we came from them?"

Status: Referred to Senate Committee on Education Pre-K-12, which Wise chairs.


Advertise on MotherJones.com

4. Tennessee

Legislation: HB 368 and SB 893 would require educators to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies." The bills list four "controversies" ripe for pedagogical tinkering: biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Modeled on Louisiana's Science Education Act (which became law in 2008), the bills are believed to have a good shot at passing. Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching evolution in public schools, worries that the legislation "will allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."

Status: HB 368 was passed by the House General Subcommittee on Education on March 16.



5. Oklahoma

Legislation: The Sooner State kicked off its creationism legislation season early with the January 19 pre-filing of SB 554, a bill that would have ensured that teachers could present "relevant scientific information" about "controversial topics in the sciences" including "biological origins of life and biological evolution." It also would have required Oklahoma to adopt science standards echoing those passed by in 2009 by the Texas state board of education. "Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable," wrote the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Josh Brecheen, in the Durant Daily Democrat. A second bill introduced in February, the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, resembled Louisiana's Science Education Act.

Status: Both bills died in committee.



6. New Mexico

Legislation: HB 302, another bill modeled on Louisiana's Science Education Act. Sponsor Kent Cravens, a state senator from Albuquerque, told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the bill wasn't anti-Darwinian, but rather was "intended to give the teacher the ability to disclose that there may be another way to think about this, whatever subject they are talking about."

Status: Died in committee.



7. Missouri

Legislation: HB 195 would permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution." Missouri is the site of the newly opened Creation Museum of the Ozarks.

Status: Not yet referred to a committee.

</span> </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN!

sack316
03-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Do any of those proposed bills ban teaching the Theory of Evolution in them? Because I'm trying to figure out how it is trying to destroy science. If any would ban it, then I'm right behind ya on this. If it doesn't, I don't see the harm in teaching the <u>ideas</u> behind both theories.

Sack

sack316
03-23-2011, 03:01 PM
Just to clarify, I do mean this as in to teach and not to preach.

Sack

LWW
03-23-2011, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do any of those proposed bills ban teaching the Theory of Evolution in them? Because I'm trying to figure out how it is trying to destroy science. If any would ban it, then I'm right behind ya on this. If it doesn't, I don't see the harm in teaching the <u>ideas</u> behind both theories.

Sack </div></div>

Creation doesn't even exclude evolution.

sack316
03-23-2011, 03:06 PM
WE know that. It doesn't exclude anything.

Sack

sack316
03-23-2011, 03:10 PM
And actually Dub, I'll have to see if I can hunt it down, but a few months ago I wrote a paper about how if the complete Naturalist view were the true case, then free thought and free will could not exist. It was pretty cool. But if I can't find it, I do believe you know the path (or at least general idea) from point A to point B there.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-23-2011, 09:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do any of those proposed bills ban teaching the Theory of Evolution in them? Because I'm trying to figure out how it is trying to destroy science. If any would ban it, then I'm right behind ya on this. If it doesn't, I don't see the harm in teaching the <u>ideas</u> behind both theories.

Sack </div></div>

Intelligent Design Isn't Science, And shouldn't be presented, as such.

In a country where we have the Separation Of Church And State, religion, has no place in a public school. There are religious schools, for that.

By presenting Intelligent Design, as Science, when it clearly, is not Science, Science is degraded.

G.

Gayle in MD
03-24-2011, 06:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just to clarify, I do mean this as in to teach and not to preach.

Sack </div></div>

When it comes to religious beliefs, teaching, IS preaching.

These recent ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL, religious, RW shenanigans, which seek to present religious beiefs, as though they were equal to the Theory Of Evolution, THE most scientifically accepted theory, having lasted centuries, and further proven, over time, are nothing more than another overreach, by the religious of this country, to destroy individual rights.

I do not support, religious teachings, in our public schools, and aprticularly, when they are presented as SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, which, Intelligent Design, surely is NOT.

The Right isn't satisfied with re-writing our own history, to suit their fantasies about the Civil War, Slavery, Joseph McCarthy, annd a range of other assaults on facts, and these latest efforts, to move religious beiefs, into our pubic school curriculum, are absolutely anti-Constitutional.

Not only that, but IMO&lt; it is very bad for students, in general, to be confused about what constitutes, science, vs religious doctrine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching evolution in public schools, worries that the legislation <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"will allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."</span>
</div></div>

I agree with Mr. Newton. He is correct, IMO.

G.

LWW
03-24-2011, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And actually Dub, I'll have to see if I can hunt it down, but a few months ago I wrote a paper about how if the complete Naturalist view were the true case, then free thought and free will could not exist. It was pretty cool. But if I can't find it, I do believe you know the path (or at least general idea) from point A to point B there.

Sack </div></div>

According to Gee the Goremons can no longer preach/teach their man made GW mythology.

llotter
03-24-2011, 07:49 AM
Acknowledging the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage needs to have a prominent place in the education of every generation; to do otherwise is to deny our history, to deny where we came from. It is a travesty of logic and common sense to believe that man is capable of self-government without the guidance of the God of our birthright.

So, let's just stop arguing about it and fall to our knees and pray for His forgiveness for our sins.

Gayle in MD
03-24-2011, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Acknowledging the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage needs to have a prominent place in the education of every generation;

<span style="color: #990000"> FYI! Not all of our Founding Fathers, were Judeo-Christians.

Additionally, we have a policy of Separation Of Church And State, in this country.

Intelligent Design, is not a Science, and has no place, in a Science Class. </span>


to do otherwise is to deny our history,

<span style="color: #990000">Again our history is that not all of our Founding fathers, were Judeo Christians, some were Athiests. Some were Agnostics, and some were other than Christian.</span>

to deny where we came from.

<span style="color: #990000">We came from many groups, of many religions, who escaped their countries of origin, to excape religious presecution, poverty, and famine, and who sought to create a more perfect union, about which, one of our Founders, wrote,
"The separation must be complete, and perfect,...." </span>


It is a travesty of logic and common sense to believe that man is capable of self-government without the guidance of the God of our birthright.


<span style="color: #990000">It is a travesty of logic and common sense, to believe that anyone has a right to expect, that in a multi religious country, founded on the policy of Separation Of Church And State, that they should be able to force their religious views, upon other people's children, in public schools attended by a wide range religious groups, and non groups.

To believe that all other people's children, must be exposed to, taught, or indoctrinated during the school day, about a religion, which is not one of their own choosing, and parental indoctrination, not the one of their parent's choosing, or in the case of Athiest Parent's wishes, no religious teachings, at all, and forced by a mandate, in our multi-religious, and philosophies, represented in our public schools, and further, even more damaging, taught as though it is THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS doctrine, FOR ALL, but only of Christians, in fact, or any other religious group.. is comploetely WRONG!

Our Public Schools, house and educate many different children, from many different religious groups, and non religious groups. If you want religion taught to your children, during school housrs, put them into a Religious School, appropriate to your own denominational beliefs, and don't seek to FORCE your personal religious views, upon all the Children of ALl the parents, who do not agree with your views, nor believe in your religion.</span>

So, let's just stop arguing about it and fall to our knees and pray for His forgiveness for our sins. </div></div>

Yes, you should stop arguing about it, because in this country of freedom, no one has a right to force my children, nor any else's children, to believe that religious DOGMA, is actually a Science, when it most positively isn't, or that their religion, is THE religion of their country, when it surely is NOT!

And yes, I think you should be praying twenty-four seven....

G.

sack316
03-25-2011, 09:48 AM
I disagree. Perhaps it may have no place in a physical science course... but at the very least some of the theories and thoughts from religion (not just Christianity, mind you) could, and perhaps should, be taught in a Sociology context.

Imagine the progress for tolerance of those different from ourselves were we only better educated about others.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-25-2011, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I disagree.
<span style="color: #990000">With which part? </span>

Perhaps it may have no place in a physical science course... but at the very least some of the theories and thoughts from religion (not just Christianity, mind you) could, and perhaps should, be taught in a Sociology context.

<span style="color: #990000">I think there is plenty of opportunity in college, for students who believe in Intelligent Design, to attend those schools which favor teaching it, hence, it is available to those who believe in it, or have an interest in religion, to study it, don't you thiink so?

Religious studies, included in the curriculum of public schools, grade one through twelve, is entirely inappropriate. </span>

Imagine the progress for tolerance of those different from ourselves were we only better educated about others.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> I don't imagine, according to what I see around me, that organized religion, promotes acceptance, or tolerance, of people who are different, as you put it.

Now, if we were discussing psychology, for example, or sociology, yes, those studies give ample documentation, scientific studies, provable facts, and promote understanding and actual information, which is very edcational, and does expand ones understanding of their fellow man/woman.

Religion? Religion is based on faith, and that is all that it is based on. There are no proven FACTS, involved, hence, it is, and always should be, a choice, one which is available to all, in various Churches, Mosques, Tenples, etc., all over the country.

I believe when it comes to religion, it should always be a pursuit of choice, not a requirement, nor a madate, and certainly not taught in public schools, ever!

G. </span>

sack316
03-25-2011, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't imagine, according to what I see around me, that organized religion, promotes acceptance, or tolerance, of people who are different, as you put it.</div></div>

That's fine. And if I said ministers, preachers, or specific religiously associated persons should hop into schools and teach such a topic then it would be a genuine concern. Which is why I specified earlier "teach not preach". Teachers can teach the thought, theory, and history of religions. Students would be richer for it with the broader understanding of the people and world around them (IMHO).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, if we were discussing psychology, for example, or sociology, yes, those studies give ample documentation, scientific studies, provable facts, and promote understanding and actual information, which is very edcational, and does expand ones understanding of their fellow man/woman.</div></div>

That's all I was saying

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Religion? Religion is based on faith, and that is all that it is based on. There are no proven FACTS, involved, hence, it is, and always should be, a choice, one which is available to all, in various Churches, Mosques, Tenples, etc., all over the country.</div></div>

Not to be nit picky, but a good majority of science would fail this standard too. Technically gravity is only a theory and not scientific law, for example. Yet we can, do, and should teach it.

Sack

LWW
03-25-2011, 10:50 AM
Here's the bottom line IMHO ... I distrust any faith that claims to have this all figured out, and actual science makes no such claim.

I also laugh at anyone who claims to believe in science but not in creation as it is doublethink gibberish.

All accepted physics points to a moment of creation where everything ... including space and time ... came into being from absolutely nothing.

Everyone should seriously attempt to wrap their head around that. At one moment there was nothing, not even the time with which to measure that there was nothing nor a universe in which the nothing existed. Then, in an infinitesimally small time, everything that exists today existed.

Now, anyone that claims this doesn't fit the definition of a miracle is IMHO clueless.

Anyone that expects me to believe that they have it all figured out is IMHO a charlatan.

Was it Yaweh? Jehovah? Allah? Zeus? Zoroaster? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? That is the realm of faith and man's attempt to come to grips with the unknowable.

The anti faith crowd loves to use the idjits that claim Christ rode a dinosaur and claim that this is what "CREATION SCIENCE" would teach in schools.

First off, it's a ridiculous claim. Second, I would agree with stopping it if it were true.

OTOH teaching the truth of the situation, that what happened before the Big Bang ... accepted as not only unknown unknowable by everyone from Saint Francis of Assisi to Steven Hawking and Einstein and Brian Greene ... is entirely sensible by any rational definition.

As I said at the start here, those who claim to have it all figured out are IMHO charlatans ... and the anti creationists claim to have it all figured out, even though most of them would fail a basic HS physics exam.

Gayle in MD
03-25-2011, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't imagine, according to what I see around me, that organized religion, promotes acceptance, or tolerance, of people who are different, as you put it.</div></div>

That's fine. And if I said ministers, preachers, or specific religiously associated persons should hop into schools and teach such a topic then it would be a genuine concern. Which is why I specified earlier "teach not preach". Teachers can teach the thought, theory, and history of religions. Students would be richer for it with the broader understanding of the people and world around them (IMHO).

<span style="color: #990000"> Can't agree with you about that, Sack, and maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I was saying, there is no place, in our public schools, for any kind of religious teaching, in any subject, Sociology, or Science.

Science does include what we call, "Theories" but the Theory Of Evolution, and the Theory of gravity, are Scientifically accepted, by the Scientific community, and have been accepted scientific theory, for centuries. Religion, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory, at all. It is based ONLY on Faith, nothing else.
</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, if we were discussing psychology, for example, or sociology, yes, those studies give ample documentation, scientific studies, provable facts, and promote understanding and actual information, which is very edcational, and does expand ones understanding of their fellow man/woman.</div></div>

That's all I was saying

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Religion? Religion is based on faith, and that is all that it is based on. There are no proven FACTS, involved, hence, it is, and always should be, a choice, one which is available to all, in various Churches, Mosques, Tenples, etc., all over the country.</div></div>

Not to be nit picky, but a good majority of science would fail this standard too. Technically gravity is only a theory and not scientific law, for example. Yet we can, do, and should teach it.

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> I don't agree that a good majority of scientific theory, would fail the standard, in the ways that religious faith, cannot be proven. The two cannot be compared, IMO. One, is Science, the other, is Faith. The standard is not at all the same.

G. </span>

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Faith?

When you are driving 65MPH down the highway and someone pulls out in front of you, you have faith that stepping on the brake pedal will stop your car.
There is some science that goes into making it happen, but if you didn't have faith, you wouldn't be driving that fast in the first place.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that God didn't plan on evolution when He created the universe.

The two are not automatically exclusive of each other. Faith and science often go hand in hand.

Steve

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Not to be nit picky, but a good majority of science would fail this standard too. Technically gravity is only a theory and not scientific law, for example. Yet we can, do, and should teach it.

Sack </div></div>

OK ... I'll be a little nit picky.

Gravity is a law. Ever body of matter has an effect upon every other body of matter that is determined by the masses of the bodies of matter and their distances from each other.

Why they have an effect on each other is the theory that space time is warped by the mass of each body and not flat as Newton assumed.

Newton found a law for which he had no viable explanation. Einstein came up with the explanation, and since no better explanation has ever been developed ... it is accepted theory.

Now, at some future point a more accurate hypothesis may prove to be true and become the new accepted theory.

sack316
03-25-2011, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't agree that a good majority of scientific theory, would fail the standard, in the ways that religious faith, cannot be proven. The two cannot be compared, IMO. One, is Science, the other, is Faith. The standard is not at all the same.

</div></div>

If the standard is that something must be considered unadulterated fact (law) we find that there are very few such things (estimates vary, but as few as 18 physical laws in the universe. But that is also easily debatable and will myself admit that would be a weak point to argue on here, just throwing that out there for perspectives sake in the context of the matter.

I also tend to think of how often scientific theory changes, gets disproven and re-written as we gain ability to discover more and study things closer. This is a great thing! But in terms of "fact" vs. "faith"... it takes a WHOLE lot of faith to believe undoubtedly many scientific things as fact considering the opening sentence of this paragraph. 100 years from now we will look pretty silly, just as generations before us seem pretty silly to us for what they believed as "fact" of their time.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, nor knocking science whatsoever. Just presenting that belief in answers based on faith is not exclusive to religion. My parents put me down one way when I was a baby. It was different than they were put to bed as babies. Because science said the old way was wrong, and this way was right. Now science says the way I was put to bed was wrong, and we're back to the "old old" way as being the proper safe procedure for baby's best chance of making it through the night. Just a thought.

Sack

sack316
03-25-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[Not to be nit picky, but a good majority of science would fail this standard too. Technically gravity is only a theory and not scientific law, for example. Yet we can, do, and should teach it.

Sack </div></div>

OK ... I'll be a little nit picky.

Gravity is a law. Ever body of matter has an effect upon every other body of matter that is determined by the masses of the bodies of matter and their distances from each other.

Why they have an effect on each other is the theory that space time is warped by the mass of each body and not flat as Newton assumed.

Newton found a law for which he had no viable explanation. Einstein came up with the explanation, and since no better explanation has ever been developed ... it is accepted theory.

Now, at some future point a more accurate hypothesis may prove to be true and become the new accepted theory. </div></div>

True enough. More specifically.... gravity itself is a law. Man's explanation of gravity, is a theory. As such, my comments on the standard would still remain the same, though... as man could not teach this other than to simply say "gravity is a law". Any more would be delving into theory, hence relying on faith the theory is correct, and shouldn't be taught in schools (if this is the standard we are presented with... which I don't think it should be).

Sack

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:26 AM
What Gee doesn't realize is that no scientist worth their beakers would claim that science can prove anything.

Newton's Principia Mathematica was accepted as an explanation of gravity for centuries , even though Newton knew he had no actual answer as to why bodies attracted each other at a distance. In fact he once wrote "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

Einstein solved what Newton couldn't answer with curved spacetime. It still however leaves unanswered questions? I suspect it always will.

It was once accepted that the "ATOM" was the one thing the universe was made from that could not be divided any smaller ... and it was assumed to be proven correct.

Today we know that the atom is actually quite large compared to the smallest known subatomic particles.

Today many believe that the atom has been replaced by the "PLANCK LENGTH" as the smallest possible measurement of the universe ... but IMHO isn't.

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Agreed.

At some point we may find that it really is Zeus pulling our strings.

If you want to get really warped on physics, research the multiverse ... wherein every conscious decision creates a new spacetimeline of existence, to where everything that is possible does in fact exist.

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:30 AM
Isn't it amazing how little of physics is actually understood by those who pontificate as an expert simply because they were spoon fed some talking points.

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 11:34 AM
If gravity is a universal law, why didn't my 8 ball drop last night, rather than just hanging over the lip of the pocket?


Steve

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:40 AM
A body in motion tends to stay in motion. A body at rest tends to stay at rest.

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 11:43 AM
The ball was in motion until it was no longer in motion. It was actually gravity (and friction) that prevented gravity from causing it to drop.

Steve

LWW
03-25-2011, 11:53 AM
Gravity on the ball was constant. Friction made it stop.

Had the forward force been more than the friction force the ball would have sank because gravity would have dictated so once there was no longer a table beneath it.

llotter
03-25-2011, 12:44 PM
As the famous Scottish philosopher, David Hume observer, "Morality is not the conclusion of reasoned thought".

Science cannot discover the right answer to questions of morality and neither can human reason and yet these are the most important questions that mankind must deal with if we want to remain out of the caves and out of the tribes and in a free and civil society. If classes in morality were held in public school, as they probably should be, it would be difficult to exclude religion.

Certainly when we had a 30 sec. prayer every morning didn't seem like forcing a belief on anyone. The old canard about separation of church and state couldn't have been the intent of the Founders since they held religious service in the Capital Building for several decades and several of the states had official religions.

Without the minister or priest or rabbi to consult, where do people go to seek the answer to moral questions? These are the 'scientists' of the moral world who devout their lives in the pursuit of the most elusive and difficult to understand questions, the moral puzzles of living in a civil society.

It is thanks to our religious heritage that we became so successful and it is thanks to the effective attacks on religion that our once solid foundation is crumbling before our eyes. I don't remember hearing about any forced conversions in this country. I have heard about all those Ivy League Schools that were once religious schools in that searched for the truth wherever it led. I have heard about all those great Catholic hospitals and schools and charities.

Among the anti-religious however, there are no charities but the forced contributions to the state and the states redistribution. So, when it comes to being forced, only the anti-religious fits the definition when they send out the police with guns to collect their tithe.

It is because morality is such a difficult subject to comprehend that many people blame it for our troubles just like so many blamed the Jews in Germany.

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 12:59 PM
I wonder why EVERY president for the past several decades has had the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham as a spiritual advisor while they were in office. In fact, he started with Truman, and included every president up to and including the present POTUS.

I guess even the liberals feel the need for a little bit of good old Southern Baptist counseling from time to time.

Steve

llotter
03-25-2011, 01:07 PM
I'm sure a lot of that is for public consumption to garner votes

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sure a lot of that is for public consumption to garner votes </div></div>

Surely not! After all, Southern Baptists are just a bunch of gun loving, bible thumping bubbas from the fly over states! Their votes aren't worth anything!!

Steve

sack316
03-25-2011, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agreed.

At some point we may find that it really is Zeus pulling our strings.

If you want to get really warped on physics, research the multiverse ... wherein every conscious decision creates a new spacetimeline of existence, to where everything that is possible does in fact exist. </div></div>

If by chance you've never seen "What the (bleep) do we know?" you should check it out, you would probably enjoy it a lot. All about quantum physics, our consciousness, and the spiritual connection between them.

Sack

editing to add that "enjoy" doesn't necessarily mean agree with. Just that it is a very interesting and extremely different take on 'reality' and physical/spiritual possibilities

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:19 PM
Is this a DVD or something?

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
editing to add that "enjoy" doesn't necessarily mean agree with. Just that it is a very interesting and extremely different take on 'reality' and physical/spiritual possibilities </div></div>

Sounds like I would enjoy it.

I'm not one of those who thinks they have it figured out.

sack316
03-25-2011, 08:19 PM
My bad I should have clarified what it was. Yeah you'll find it on DVD... was a movie that came out around '04 if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure, but you may even be able to find it on one of the premium movie networks on on demand somewhere as well.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-26-2011, 12:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't agree that a good majority of scientific theory, would fail the standard, in the ways that religious faith, cannot be proven. The two cannot be compared, IMO. One, is Science, the other, is Faith. The standard is not at all the same.

</div></div>

If the standard is that something must be considered unadulterated fact (law) we find that there are very few such things (estimates vary, but as few as 18 physical laws in the universe. But that is also easily debatable and will myself admit that would be a weak point to argue on here, just throwing that out there for perspectives sake in the context of the matter.

I also tend to think of how often scientific theory changes, gets disproven and re-written as we gain ability to discover more and study things closer. This is a great thing! But in terms of "fact" vs. "faith"... it takes a WHOLE lot of faith to believe undoubtedly many scientific things as fact considering the opening sentence of this paragraph. 100 years from now we will look pretty silly, just as generations before us seem pretty silly to us for what they believed as "fact" of their time.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, nor knocking science whatsoever. Just presenting that belief in answers based on faith is not exclusive to religion. My parents put me down one way when I was a baby. It was different than they were put to bed as babies. Because science said the old way was wrong, and this way was right. Now science says the way I was put to bed was wrong, and we're back to the "old old" way as being the proper safe procedure for baby's best chance of making it through the night. Just a thought.

Sack </div></div>



Lots of things can be turned, skewed, twisted, rearranged, nitpicked, if you will, suffice it to say, I am still where I was when we started...there are a whole range of reasons why religion should not be taught, in our public school system, and surely not presented on any equal ground with the Theory Of Evolution, IMO, as though religious belief, is comparable to scientic studies, and findings,

So if we look back to where we started that limited conversation....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do any of those proposed bills ban teaching the Theory of Evolution in them? Because I'm trying to figure out how it is trying to destroy science. If any would ban it, then I'm right behind ya on this. If it doesn't, I don't see the harm in teaching the ideas behind both theories.

Sack
</div></div>


I can only say, I wouldn't have thought that you would have had a problem, understanding how Science, and religious opinion, are not comparable. Hence, I am still here:...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching evolution in public schools, worries that the legislation "will allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."



</div></div>

There is no comparison, IMO, between religious faith, or the belief in intelligent design, and scientific studies, in this case, the Theory Of Evolution. One is science, developed through trial and error, the other is pure faith, with absolutely no proof, involved in the choice of embracing it.

That is the difference.

As a Parent, I would not want anyone to mislead my child into thinking that faith, is Science. They are two entirely different things. Additionally, teaching only Christianity, in a country where we have numerous religions, is not at all acceptable.

suffice it to say, I still believe that religion has no place in a public school classroom, unless it is in a religious school, chosen by the parents for their children.

G.

JohnnyD
03-26-2011, 12:55 AM
You madam wench are a disgrace to mothers everywhere.
Get with the program.
Jesus loves you.
You know he does.

Gayle in MD
03-26-2011, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As the famous Scottish philosopher, David Hume observer, "Morality is not the conclusion of reasoned thought".

Science cannot discover the right answer to questions of morality and neither can human reason

<span style="color: #660000">I find that statement completely absurd! The rest of what you have written seems to come more from your political slant, than anything that relates to the question at hand....</span>

and yet these are the most important questions that mankind must deal with if we want to remain out of the caves and out of the tribes and in a free and civil society.

<span style="color: #990000"> LOL.... </span>

If classes in morality were held in public school, as they probably should be, it would be difficult to exclude religion.

<span style="color: #990000">Religion is far from the only form of study, which addresses morality! </span>

Certainly when we had a 30 sec. prayer every morning didn't seem like forcing a belief on anyone.

<span style="color: #990000"> I don't think you, as a Christian, can speak for everyone in the class. Our country has many religious groups, not just the Christian beliefs. </span>

The old canard about separation of church and state couldn't have been the intent of the Founders since they held religious service in the Capital Building for several decades and several of the states had official religions.

<span style="color: #990000"> You are quite wrong about that, it most certainly was the intent of our Founders....and there have been prayers in the Capital, by a number of different religious groups, not just Christian prayers. </span>

Without the minister or priest or rabbi to consult, where do people go to seek the answer to moral questions?

<span style="color: #990000">Don't be ridiculous! Organized religion has no franchise on conscience. </span>


These are the 'scientists' of the moral world who devout their lives in the pursuit of the most elusive and difficult to understand questions, the moral puzzles of living in a civil society.

<span style="color: #990000"> I can surely understand why learning to live in a moral society, is a puzzle for you. Living in a civil society, depends on enforcing the law, the very thing which your hero, the murderer, didn't respect. </span>

It is thanks to our religious heritage that we became so successful and it is thanks to the effective attacks on religion that our once solid foundation is crumbling before our eyes. I don't remember hearing about any forced conversions in this country. I have heard about all those Ivy League Schools that were once religious schools in that searched for the truth wherever it led. I have heard about all those great Catholic hospitals and schools and charities.



Among the anti-religious however, there are no charities but the forced contributions to the state and the states redistribution.


<span style="color: #990000"> That's funny, I have been watching Republican Governors redistributing state taxes, paid by the Middle Class, to corporations, for weeks now....and further, you have no proof that Athiests, if they are who you THINK is anti-religion, do not contirbute to charities, and in fact, that isnt true at all. You seem to have a serious problem realzing that people who do not subscribe to organized religion, are not anti-religion, the same way that people who believe in a woman's right to control her own body, are not PRO ABORTION... </span>

So, when it comes to being forced, only the anti-religious fits the definition when they send out the police with guns to collect their tithe.


<span style="color: #990000"> LMAO! You are really... OUT THERE! </span>

It is because morality is such a difficult subject to comprehend that many people blame it for our troubles just like so many blamed the Jews in Germany. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> I can certainly understand why you have so much trouble with morality.

G. </span>

llotter
03-28-2011, 03:51 PM
I didn't want to give you the last word, especially when you were so wrong on about every point you raised.

You are, to your great fortune, part of a culture and the most important part of that culture are the values that help the citizens distinguish right from wrong. If you were born Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, you would have the values of those cultures instead of our Christian culture. It is not possible to crate a culture through the law short of a strict dictatorship. Your conscience is formed by our Christian culture whether you realize it or not.

I was not wrong about either the Capital being used for Sunday Services (Christian) and many states have an official state religion (Christian all).

Gov. Walker is not 'redistributing', he is letting people keep more of what they earn, he is taking less, stealing less. Unlike the Liberals who think they are smart enough to decide who should have how much and see nothing morally abhorrent and logically contradictory about having such power unto themselves in a 'free' society.

Gayle in MD
03-28-2011, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't want to give you the last word, especially when you were so wrong on about every point you raised.

You are, to your great fortune, part of a culture and the most important part of that culture are the values that help the citizens distinguish right from wrong.

<span style="color: #660000"> IMO, each of us has our own ideas about right and wrong. Obviously, there are many chruches without a clue. Those Baptists, for example, demonstrating at the graves of our fallen soldiers.

The Catholic church, hiding and protecting pedophiles.

My parents, taught me right from wrong, through their example, not some church. </span>

If you were born Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, you would have the values of those cultures instead of our Christian culture.

<span style="color: #990000">My values belong to me, and they are the sum total of my experiences, philosophy, and observations, determined by my own studies, not from some Church.

Many of my views, are far more in line with Buddhist philosophies, than Christian teachings. </span>

It is not possible to crate a culture through the law short of a strict dictatorship.

<span style="color: #660000"> If you think churches are more effective in keeping the peace, you should take a trip to Detroit, where the Republican cutbacks, have removed much of the police force, and see how you like that culture. </span>


Your conscience is formed by our Christian culture whether you realize it or not.

<span style="color: #990000">No it is not! Much of your so called, "Christian" culture goes against everything I believe in.

I am against sexism, racism, homophobia, pedophelia, and misogyny....all of which I find are often taught, and hidden in unspeakable behavior, by priests and reverends, in many Christian churches.... </span>

I was not wrong about either the Capital being used for Sunday Services (Christian) and many states have an official state religion (Christian all).

<span style="color: #990000"> Oh yes you are wrong, it is not ONLY Christian services. </span>

Gov. Walker is not 'redistributing', he is letting people keep more of what they earn, he is taking less, stealing less.

<span style="color: #990000"> Governor Walker, is trying to create a Republican One Party system, and he is taking away from the Middle Class, and giving more money to corporate fascist pigs. </span>


Unlike the Liberals who think they are smart enough to decide who should have how much and see nothing morally abhorrent and logically contradictory about having such power unto themselves in a 'free' society. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">Democratics represent all Americans, Republicans represent ONLY the WEALTHY AMERICANS. You've got this thing completely backwards.

Oh, and BTW, how come you stopped praising the murderer in every post? Did you have second thoughts about it?

G.</span>

pooltchr
03-28-2011, 06:43 PM
Me thinks she doth protest a bit too much!

Steve

Sev
03-28-2011, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't want to give you the last word, especially when you were so wrong on about every point you raised.

You are, to your great fortune, part of a culture and the most important part of that culture are the values that help the citizens distinguish right from wrong. If you were born Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, you would have the values of those cultures instead of our Christian culture. It is not possible to crate a culture through the law short of a strict dictatorship. Your conscience is formed by our Christian culture whether you realize it or not.

I was not wrong about either the Capital being used for Sunday Services (Christian) and many states have an official state religion (Christian all).

Gov. Walker is not 'redistributing', he is letting people keep more of what they earn, he is taking less, stealing less. Unlike the Liberals who think they are smart enough to decide who should have how much and see nothing morally abhorrent and logically contradictory about having such power unto themselves in a 'free' society. </div></div>

Judeo Christian my good man.

Sev
03-28-2011, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't want to give you the last word, especially when you were so wrong on about every point you raised.

You are, to your great fortune, part of a culture and the most important part of that culture are the values that help the citizens distinguish right from wrong.

<span style="color: #660000"> IMO, each of us has our own ideas about right and wrong. Obviously, there are many chruches without a clue. Those Baptists, for example, demonstrating at the graves of our fallen soldiers.

The Catholic church, hiding and protecting pedophiles.

My parents, taught me right from wrong, through their example, not some church. </span>

If you were born Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, you would have the values of those cultures instead of our Christian culture.

<span style="color: #990000">My values belong to me, and they are the sum total of my experiences, philosophy, and observations, determined by my own studies, not from some Church.

Many of my views, are far more in line with Buddhist philosophies, than Christian teachings. </span>

It is not possible to crate a culture through the law short of a strict dictatorship.

<span style="color: #660000"> If you think churches are more effective in keeping the peace, you should take a trip to Detroit, where the Republican cutbacks, have removed much of the police force, and see how you like that culture. </span>


Your conscience is formed by our Christian culture whether you realize it or not.

<span style="color: #990000">No it is not! Much of your so called, "Christian" culture goes against everything I believe in.

I am against sexism, racism, homophobia, pedophelia, and misogyny....all of which I find are often taught, and hidden in unspeakable behavior, by priests and reverends, in many Christian churches.... </span>

I was not wrong about either the Capital being used for Sunday Services (Christian) and many states have an official state religion (Christian all).

<span style="color: #990000"> Oh yes you are wrong, it is not ONLY Christian services. </span>

Gov. Walker is not 'redistributing', he is letting people keep more of what they earn, he is taking less, stealing less.

<span style="color: #990000"> Governor Walker, is trying to create a Republican One Party system, and he is taking away from the Middle Class, and giving more money to corporate fascist pigs. </span>


Unlike the Liberals who think they are smart enough to decide who should have how much and see nothing morally abhorrent and logically contradictory about having such power unto themselves in a 'free' society. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">Democratics represent all Americans, Republicans represent ONLY the WEALTHY AMERICANS. You've got this thing completely backwards.

Oh, and BTW, how come you stopped praising the murderer in every post? Did you have second thoughts about it?

G.</span> </div></div>

I see somebody has the ability to look through a keyhole with both eyes.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do any of those proposed bills ban teaching the Theory of Evolution in them?

Sack </div></div>

Hypothesis of evolution.

It is far from proven science as it has many gaps.

Qtec
03-29-2011, 04:54 AM
More telling is that in 150 years, not one piece of scientific evidence has been presented to show its not true.

Genetics was the last chance for the deniers and it only reinforced the theory of evolution.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=player_embedded)


Q

LWW
03-29-2011, 05:28 AM
Isn't it astounding how much the spoon fed Darwinists damage their own cause.

The two biggest issues with Darwinism, as preached by the far left, are:

1 - Not a single instance of abiogenesis has ever occurred in a laboratory.

2 - Darwinism, as preached by the cult of Darwin, violates Newton's second law of thermodynamics.

Yet the spoon fed among us somehow have been convinced that a scientific hypothesis must be proven wrong or it must be accepted.

LWW
03-29-2011, 05:35 AM
Has anyone else noticed that this thread title ... "Creationists Try 2 Destroy The Separation&Science" ... is a mangled statement?

Gayle in MD
03-29-2011, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More telling is that in 150 years, not one piece of scientific evidence has been presented to show its not true.

Genetics was the last chance for the deniers and it only reinforced the theory of evolution.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=player_embedded)


Q
</div></div>

The same types who doubt the Theory Of Evolution, think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Let's face it. The Right, and the Republican Party, both the last place one would find rationality, on any subject. Now, more than ever, they represent irrationality, and hatred. Their radical right, is now the nemesis of the party....a non-stop headache for a GOP that desperately wants swing voters to see the party as something more than a collection of hysterically irrational ideological extremists.


Organized religion is wrought with racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, all of the irrational approaches to life, which fill this world with hate, ignorance, and division.

If one wishes to speak of God? Organized religion has absolutely nothing at all to do with God, IMO.

Mormans, for example, bought into the same hate filled Cain and Able story, which is in the Bible, blacks are the demons of the world. Not until the late seventies, did they realize they would have problems getting their fellow Mormans, into office, if they didn't change their racist attitudes. The Mormons were the racists extrordinaire.....

Nothing, IMO, absolutely nothing that exists on this earth, has caused the torture, wars, death, destruction, hatred and division, that organized religion has brought to the world.


G.

Qtec
03-29-2011, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Not a single instance of abiogenesis has ever occurred in a laboratory. </div></div>

Really?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What a surprise?</span>

What were the results after 4 billion years?

Don't know? Didn't think so.


[ I planted a tomato seed yesterday and today I have no tomatoes!??? Guess it must be a dud. ]



Q....... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
03-29-2011, 07:16 AM
And isn't it amazing how little poor Snoopy and Gee actually know about science.

If abiogenesis can happen under a certain set of circumstances, then it would always happen under those same circumstances.

And now Gee is accusing Chris Matthews of being anti science?

Where does this comedy troupe play next?

Qtec
03-29-2011, 07:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If abiogenesis can happen under a certain set of circumstances, then it would always happen under those same circumstances.</div></div>

OVER TIME, you imbecile.



Q

LWW
03-29-2011, 07:26 AM
Yes, he is very confused.

Qtec
03-29-2011, 07:33 AM
I might be confused but its VERY clear to ALL that you are talking out your a$$.

Its also VERY clear that when asked a direct Q you have no answer.

Q

pooltchr
03-29-2011, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If one wishes to speak of God?

G.
</div></div>

Perhaps you could become a better person if you try speaking <u>with</u> Him, rather than <u>of</u> Him.

Steve

LWW
03-29-2011, 07:56 AM
In her mind she does, except that "HIM" is Barack Hussein Obama Junior.

Gayle in MD
03-29-2011, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I might be confused but its VERY clear to ALL that you are talking out your a$$.

Its also VERY clear that when asked a direct Q you have no answer.

Q </div></div>

It's clear none of them ever have a answer when faced with proof of their own incorrect, twisted, inaccurate versions of truth....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
03-29-2011, 08:18 AM
She is so cute when she tries to explain things away.

pooltchr
03-29-2011, 09:50 AM
I will admit it is quite entertaining watching her duck and weave as she continues to try and defend the failed policies of the left.

Steve

llotter
03-29-2011, 11:52 AM
Yes, to know so little yet believe they know everything is the sophomoric position in which the Left are frozen, never to move on to higher learning. Most people come to realize, as their education continues, just how little they know but those with a certain mental disorder (liberalism) are simply unable to pass into adulthood.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:45 PM
I agree, other than they are most assuredly not "LIBERALS" by any traditional definition of the word.

The left has taken squatter's rights on the term liberal after using up "MARXIST, "COMMUNIST", SOCIALIST" AND PROGRESSIVE" ... they are even drifuing back to progressive on the knowledge that very few living Americans can remember that FDR's VP Wallace ran on the progressive ticket while being an agent of the left's then darling Joe Stalin.

After being so heavily invested in uncle Joe, they have never had the intellectual integrity to face the truth that senator McCarthy was right.

llotter
03-29-2011, 05:49 PM
Maybe it is a cause worth fighting for to bring back the term 'liberal' to its rightful meaning instead of conceding it to the Left since obfuscation of the language is one of their prime techniques to undermine our society. And that thought brings forth a list of terms that they have corrupted to mean their opposite: freedom, fairness, justice, rights, and I would invite others to add to the list.

LWW
03-30-2011, 02:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it is a cause worth fighting for to bring back the term 'liberal' to its rightful meaning instead of conceding it to the Left since obfuscation of the language is one of their prime techniques to undermine our society. And that thought brings forth a list of terms that they have corrupted to mean their opposite: freedom, fairness, justice, rights, and I would invite others to add to the list. </div></div>

Redefining words to change history was one of the main purposes of "NEWSPEAK" in 1984. The second purpose of newspeak was to cull words from the language each year ... being done now by PC ... until no words for love, or disobedience, or rebellion, or other undesirable traits existed in language.

Once such ideas were impossible to write or speak, they would equally become impossible to communicate.

By changing word defs, history could be de facto rewritten without having to be rewritten.

"LIBERAL" is what I am and what you are. The cabal are oligarchists who believe that tyranny is the proper means by which a society should operate, they have just hidden their agenda inside of a feel good word.

Gayle in MD
03-30-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it is a cause worth fighting for to bring back the term 'liberal' to its rightful meaning instead of conceding it to the Left since obfuscation of the language is one of their prime techniques to undermine our society. And that thought brings forth a list of terms that they have corrupted to mean their opposite: freedom, fairness, justice, rights, and I would invite others to add to the list. </div></div>

How about if you, look into your own REBONICS, and start by learning the difference between the word "HERO" and and the word, "MURDERER."

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Republicans are an anthropological study, in the complete bastardization of the English Language.

Never in history, has a political party, so successfully brain washed it's followers with inappropriate buzz words, chosen specifically, to garner the desired, tactical, knee jerk, dog whistle results.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

llotter
03-30-2011, 06:10 AM
What we are talking about, Gayle, is how the Left changes the meaning of words, sometimes to mean their exact opposite, not, as you understand, to extract emotion of our vocabulary. There is nothing wrong with talking about 'freedom' even though it often elicits an emotional response.

What the Left has done with that word is to redefine it to mean its opposite, i.e. a person is free when the state provides for all of their needs, free to therefore to do as they please without concern for their own welfare. The historic meaning however, is that citizens should be free from oppression and coercion by the state, free to pursue their dreams and aspirations with only minimal interference. The former definition fosters dependence and the latter is a declaration of independence.

The cradle to grave security of Marx's dream is now commonly thought of as the ideal of a 'free' society, never mind that the state becomes the center of power and manipulation and often a tyranny.

Gayle in MD
03-30-2011, 06:23 AM
LOL, wake up. It's the Republicans who are all about dictating, forcing their will upon others, and destroying our freedoms.

Also, it's the right, not the left, which is constantly changing the meaning of words...

It's also the right, which constantly accuses the left, of what they themselves are doing....

WAKE UP!

LWW
03-30-2011, 03:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What the Left has done with that word is to redefine it to mean its opposite</div></div>

You may have heard Orwell's prophecy on this. I present to you "1984" Chapter 1 part 1:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran. ...

Outside, even through the shut window-pane, the world looked cold. Down in the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper into spirals, and though the sun was shining and the sky a harsh blue, there seemed to be no colour in anything, except the posters that were plastered everywhere. The blackmoustachio'd face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston's own. Down at streetlevel another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered. ...

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. ...

The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH </span> ...

So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.

The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons. ...

He went back to the living-room and sat down at a small table that stood to the left of the telescreen. From the table drawer he took out a penholder, a bottle of ink, and a thick, quarto-sized blank book with a red back and a marbled cover.

For some reason the telescreen in the living-room was in an unusual position. Instead of being placed, as was normal, in the end wall, where it could command the whole room, it was in the longer wall, opposite the window. To one side of it there was a shallow alcove in which Winston was now sitting, and which, when the flats were built, had probably been intended to hold bookshelves. By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen. It was partly the unusual geography of the room that had suggested to him the thing that he was now about to do. ...

The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp. Winston fitted a nib into the penholder and sucked it to get the grease off. The pen was an archaic instrument, seldom used even for signatures, and he had procured one, furtively and with some difficulty, simply because of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink-pencil. Actually he was not used to writing by hand. Apart from very short notes, it was usual to dictate everything into the speakwrite which was of course impossible for his present purpose. He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote:

April 4th, 1984. </div></div>

Qtec
03-31-2011, 05:59 AM
you will like this, the rest won't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DQUAuNUvw&feature=related)

Q

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 06:07 AM
WOW, those last several sentences perfectly describe dishonorable Republican extremism.

G.

LWW
03-31-2011, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My bad I should have clarified what it was. Yeah you'll find it on DVD... was a movie that came out around '04 if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure, but you may even be able to find it on one of the premium movie networks on on demand somewhere as well.

Sack </div></div>

Got a link to this?

It seems to have set the cabal into a shorts wadding moment.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 06:34 AM
Here you go... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU)

It took me 20 secs to find it. Either you are dumb or lazy.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here you go... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU)

It took me 20 secs to find it. Either you are dumb or lazy.

Q </div></div>

He just pulls that BS to "Look" like he gives a damn about finding the facts.

Actually, I'm shocked that Sack would have any interest in that BS.

All comes back to this, written by Sack:

"That's fine. And if I said ministers, preachers, or specific religiously associated persons should hop into schools and teach such a topic then it would be a genuine concern. Which is why I specified earlier "teach not preach". Teachers can teach the thought, theory, and history of religions. Students would be richer for it with the broader understanding of the people and world around them (IMHO)."



Total contradiction, enveloped in one sentence.

Teaching about religion, IS preaching.
Organized religion does not promote understanding, and inclusion, in fact just the opposite.

Neither Religion, or Intelligent Design, is Science. to teach school kids otherwise, goes against the purpose of education, itself.

End of Story.

G.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 07:00 AM
Something that always struck me.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come, come, whoever you are.
Wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving — it doesn't matter,
Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times,
Come, come again, come. </div></div>

Q

sack316
03-31-2011, 01:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Actually, I'm shocked that Sack would have any interest in that BS.</div></div>

In what BS? Things like quantum physics? Yeah there's a lot I disagree with in it, but it is interesting stuff. I enjoy thought provoking and weird thoughts/theories, it's a good way to learn.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All comes back to this, written by Sack:

"That's fine. And if I said ministers, preachers, or specific religiously associated persons should hop into schools and teach such a topic then it would be a genuine concern. Which is why I specified earlier "teach not preach". Teachers can teach the thought, theory, and history of religions. Students would be richer for it with the broader understanding of the people and world around them (IMHO)."



Total contradiction, enveloped in one sentence.

Teaching about religion, IS preaching.
Organized religion does not promote understanding, and inclusion, in fact just the opposite.</div></div>

Then you are just failing to grasp this thought and I'm sorry for that. You can "teach and not preach" just as I said. I can sit down with you over a period of time and teach you all about a religion's history, its theories, and beliefs without preaching them to you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither Religion, or Intelligent Design, is Science. to teach school kids otherwise, goes against the purpose of education, itself.

End of Story.

G.
</div></div>

You seem to presume (and perhaps it's my fault) that I'm saying to teach it as any other science such as biology or geology or chemistry, etc.

Let me see if I can clarify the <u>social science</u> aspect that I believe is important to not exclude. Think of our nation's relationship with much of the Muslim world. You can even flip that to think of what much of the Muslim world thinks of us as well.

Do you, or do you not believe that (let's just say) if for the last few generations part of our education here had to do with learning about other's beliefs systems, cultures, traditions, and values that we would still see as much ignorance and intolerance from either/both side? Or do you think by virtue of having had that learning experience and education things would be better?

My bet would be that if every person in America were properly educated on that different faith, we may not have so many people believing everyone in a turban could have a bomb strapped to them.

Education is about learning more... as much and about as many things... as possible. Not excluding things and learning less.

JMHO

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Actually, I'm shocked that Sack would have any interest in that BS.</div></div>

In what BS? Things like quantum physics? Yeah there's a lot I disagree with in it, but it is interesting stuff. I enjoy thought provoking and weird thoughts/theories, it's a good way to learn.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All comes back to this, written by Sack:

"That's fine. And if I said ministers, preachers, or specific religiously associated persons should hop into schools and teach such a topic then it would be a genuine concern. Which is why I specified earlier "teach not preach". Teachers can teach the thought, theory, and history of religions. Students would be richer for it with the broader understanding of the people and world around them (IMHO)."



Total contradiction, enveloped in one sentence.

Teaching about religion, IS preaching.
Organized religion does not promote understanding, and inclusion, in fact just the opposite.</div></div>

Then you are just failing to grasp this thought and I'm sorry for that. You can "teach and not preach" just as I said. I can sit down with you over a period of time and teach you all about a religion's history, its theories, and beliefs without preaching them to you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither Religion, or Intelligent Design, is Science. to teach school kids otherwise, goes against the purpose of education, itself.

End of Story.

G.
</div></div>

You seem to presume (and perhaps it's my fault) that I'm saying to teach it as any other science such as biology or geology or chemistry, etc.

Let me see if I can clarify the <u>social science</u> aspect that I believe is important to not exclude. Think of our nation's relationship with much of the Muslim world. You can even flip that to think of what much of the Muslim world thinks of us as well.

Do you, or do you not believe that (let's just say) if for the last few generations part of our education here had to do with learning about other's beliefs systems, cultures, traditions, and values that we would still see as much ignorance and intolerance from either/both side? Or do you think by virtue of having had that learning experience and education things would be better?

My bet would be that if every person in America were properly educated on that different faith, we may not have so many people believing everyone in a turban could have a bomb strapped to them.

Education is about learning more... as much and about as many things... as possible. Not excluding things and learning less.

JMHO

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
What you have written in this post, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

This thread is about teachers, telling our kids, that the theory of Intelligent Design, equals the Theory of evolution.

That is a lie.

Intelligent design, is not at all a Scientific Theory.
Intelligent Design, has absolutely NO relationsip to Science.

And, no, I do not consider the subject of any organized religion, to be an appropriate subject for Public School children! Religion, has no place in our public school system, AND, "Teaching about religion, IS preaching."

I hope I have made myself clear....

G.

G.

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 06:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Teaching about religion, IS preaching."

I hope I have made myself clear....

G.

G. </div></div>

So I guess all the college professors teaching religious philosophy are ordained preachers??????

Every time you post, you demonstrate your inability to think clearly.

Steve

sack316
04-01-2011, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> AND, "Teaching about religion, IS preaching."
</div></div>

Well I'm sorry but that's an extremely narrow view. I completed every required hour of classes to add on a Religious Studies degree. I was not preached to once in any of the courses.

In fact, when I first had to take a religious studies course as an elective (before I had any interest in it) I was actually very hesitant and unhappy for the same reasons you are as well as my thought of "what the heck does this have to do with Business Management and why do I have to take it?" I had my own thoughts and beliefs, and didn't want my GPA affected because I might disagree with what was taught in the course.

Long story short, it was TAUGHT so well and so enriching from a historical and "thinking" perspective I wound up going for a degree in it. Here I sit, a few years later with my same beliefs I had going in... just with the added bonus of everything I learned.

Sorry you disagree... and I promise I don't mean this as a pop shot or anything... but did you go to Catholic school at some point as a child?

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 09:58 AM
Sack,
We are talking about two entirely different things.

I am addressing teaching Intelligent Design, in our public school system, grade school, Middle School, and High School. That is what this thread addresses, and that is my context.

You are talking about college courses, for a Religious Stidies Degree.

One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

However, one thing is constant, about both subjects, and that is teaching Intelligent Design, as though it is a Science, which it is NOT.

I hope I have cleared this up?

G.

G.