Wtf!?!

[Bullypulpit]

Can you please list those hundreds of religions in America...must have missed this during Comparative Religion classes in Public HS 1960-1962..Also our founding Fathers based our constitution and beliefs on the Christian faith...go figure...now it is not good enough or correct enough to place before our new generation....how sad you are!

You keep repeating that sorry old saw as it if it were the thruth. Show me one reference to a Christian god in the Constitution...There is none. The term "Creator" implies no specific religious ideal. The truth of the matter is that our Founding Fathers were, bye and large, deists, and felt that the individual should follow the path of their own choosing.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Nonsense. It has no relationship whatsoever with "saying we need to teach godless communism." No particular religion has the right to impose its beliefs in public schools. That is because hundreds of religions exist in America. No particular religion can take precedence over any other in public schools. Who is to say which religious beliefs should be taught in public schools? You, ScreamingEagle? It is well known that ID and Creationism are smoke screens for Christian Fundamentalists who want their beliefs imposed in public schools. That is not right because there are hundreds of conflicting religious beliefs that exist in America. Why would Christian Fundamentalists have any more right to impose their beliefs in public schools, than Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, or Taoists? What is next? Islamic beliefs taught in public schools? The United States is not a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. The United States protects all religions and protects all citizens from unwanted imposition of any particular religion.

Actually, comparative religion should be a mandatory class in high schools across the country. It would give kids an idea of the similarities and differences amongst the worlds great religions, and give them the intellectual tools they need to make choices which best suit their needs.

 

[mrsx]

:bat: You are really boring to say the least...admit you jumped in where you had no concept of what the conversation was about...good night troll! :blah2:

Please give a source for your "military terminology" about cutting through the chase. Hmm... I thought so. Name calling only makes you look more immature and ill-informed. Back to your G.I. Joe games, Sonny, and leave an old lady in peace.

 

[archangel]

Please give a source for your "military terminology" about cutting through the chase. Hmm... I thought so. Name calling only makes you look more immature and ill-informed. Back to your G.I. Joe games, Sonny, and leave an old lady in peace.

Damn...thank you for calling me "Sonny"...you really must be old calling a old fart "sonny"...Also being a former Vietnam era vet,US Armt Sgt.E-5 and 2nd Lt...I reserve the right to classify military terminology when speaking...and you were a what in the military to question me? Go back to the maple trees!

 

[archangel]

You keep repeating that sorry old saw as it if it were the thruth. Show me one reference to a Christian god in the Constitution...There is none. The term "Creator" implies no specific religious ideal. The truth of the matter is that our Founding Fathers were, bye and large, deists, and felt that the individual should follow the path of their own choosing.

Show me in the "Constitution where it says our founding fathers were "deists"
also show me in history biography's the religion of each of the founding fathers...if you look it up you will only embarrass yourself once again! Now go to the maple tree with "mrsx"....

 

[nakedemperor]

Today we have freedom from the imposition of any particular religion in America? Ha! Secularism is a religion of sorts. It is being imposed all over America. Take a look at what the ACLU is accomplishing.

I don't follow this secularism is a religion thing; isn't secularism the absence of religion?

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are two different things.
Today we do not have freedom OF religion in our schools. Before the ACLU attacked, they used to pray in public schools. Nobody complained either. Today you get sanctioned or sued for mentioning God.

Now what we really have is freedom FROM religion in our schools - except for secularism and Islam - two very different bedfellows - but both with the goal of destroying America as we know it.

Freedom *of* religion includes freedom *from* religion. For example, I wouldn't want my children being taught the precepts of any particular religion in a public school. The freedom of religion that we enjoy in this country is extended to the attendees of public schools, but not to the public schools' science curriculum. ID is a faith-based theory, with no real scientific merit. It has no place in a science classroom. By the pro-ID logic, we should be teaching any number of aforementioned (by onedomino) illegitimate "sciences" in the classroom, merely because they exist as alternatives.

Also, I am a "secularist" by your definition for arguing this position, I think, but I don't want to destroy America. Lets not get crazy and conspiratorial here.

Don't fall for the false "separation of church and state" argument. Kicking any sort of religious reference out of the schools is not a form of protecting you from "religious persecution". It is one of the necessary steps to stamp out religion from American society to pave the way for a godless brave new world.

Uh, last I checked religion exists in schools, its called religion class. I also read many novels about religion back in school. Science classrooms disallowing ID from their curriculum isn't called 'religous persecution', its called common sense. You don't bring faith, of whatever denomination, into a science classroom, because of freedom of (and implicitly, from) religion.

 

[mrsx]

Damn...thank you for calling me "Sonny"...you really must be old calling a old fart "sonny"...Also being a former Vietnam era vet,US Armt Sgt.E-5 and 2nd Lt...I reserve the right to classify military terminology when speaking...and you were a what in the military to question me? Go back to the maple trees!

In deference to your advanced years, I'm going to let you "cut through the chase" and escape without further humiliation. You couldn't cite anyone else using that absurd expression, could you? Ta-ta, you dashing soldier boy.

 

[archangel]

In deference to your advanced years, I'm going to let you "cut through the chase" and escape without further humiliation. You couldn't cite anyone else using that absurd expression, could you? Ta-ta, you dashing soldier boy.

I cited myself...terms I used during time in the military...have no need to cite others...I was a leader...not a follower...a concept that is somehow forgotten in chat and forum rooms...if another did not say it...it does not exist..

 

[mrsx]

I cited myself...terms I used during time in the military...have no need to cite others...I was a leader...not a follower...a concept that is somehow forgotten in chat and forum rooms...if another did not say it...it does not exist..

The fact that you cite yourself is cute. No one else will - your solecism is just one of those little mistakes that everyone makes from time to time. Your refusal to admit the error and your ridiculous efforts to rationalize it with nonsensical bluster do you even less credit. It's bad enough to not know what you are talking about; you don't even know how to talk. Even so, I will forgive you for persecuting me and pray to St. Jude to bring light to your cerebral darkness. I'll bet you looked cute in uniform. Why not post a picture?

 

[archangel]

The fact that you cite yourself is cute. No one else will - your solecism is just one of those little mistakes that everyone makes from time to time. Your refusal to admit the error and your ridiculous efforts to rationalize it with nonsensical bluster do you even less credit. It's bad enough to not know what you are talking about; you don't even know how to talk. Even so, I will forgive you for persecuting me and pray to St. Jude to bring light to your cerebral darkness. I'll bet you looked cute in uniform. Why not post a picture?

I only send pics to those I like...on a personal request...you could not "handle the truth" if it bit ya on the butt...much less give a good argument of college cut!...The sun is back out so back to the lake for me...this converstion is getting boring! and by the way...why have you not posted a pic? many in here have requested one....I am not interested but it appears as if others are!

 

[007]

Evolution is a fact

Ummm... "What is NO, it's NOT!"

Evolution is a CONCEPT based on a THEORY, nothing more. One mans idea with nothing to PROVE it.

Although it doesn't surprize me you swallow theory as fact. You believe mickey moore tells the truth too, even after countless web pages dedicated to pointing out in unquestionable research that he lied.

 

[mrsx]

I only send pics to those I like...on a personal request...you could not "handle the truth" if it bit ya on the butt...much less give a good argument of college cut!...The sun is back out so back to the lake for me...this converstion is getting boring! and by the way...why have you not posted a pic? many in here have requested one....I am not interested but it appears as if others are!

Don't be so shy! Faint heart ne'er won fair maiden - although it would probably take a bit less to win an old flirt like me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Show me in the "Constitution where it says our founding fathers were "deists"
also show me in history biography's the religion of each of the founding fathers...if you look it up you will only embarrass yourself once again! Now go to the maple tree with "mrsx"....

No...No...No...You answer my question first. If the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation, why wasn't Christianity explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

And let's see, John Adams was a Unitarian, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist/Episcoalian, George Washington was a Deist/Episcopalian, Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, as were Ethan Allen , James Madison and James Monroe. Hardly the absolutists the religious right wing-nuts whish them to be.

You are dismissed. Run along now, I here your mommy calling you. Come back when you aren't so wet behind the ears.

 

[musicman]

I don't follow this secularism is a religion thing; isn't secularism the absence of religion?

Religion is the means by which we attempt to understand the transcendent - that which exists outside ourselves. Secularism is such a means; particularly the type of secularism practiced by modern liberals (aptly described by Hillary Clinton as "the politics of meaning"). It is, then - most assuredly - a religion, and not a very tolerant one, as we're seeing. It demands the exclusion of all others from the public arena - ESPECIALLY Christianity.

Freedom *of* religion includes freedom *from* religion.

If that's what a community decides - yeah. But, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for the forced exclusion of religion from public discourse by a hateful, fanatical minority; I don't care how many figure-eights the Judiciary tries to twist the XIVth Amendment into. Americans are supposed to be free to govern themselves; the founding fathers were ADAMANT about that. Believe in God or don't; it's no skin of my nose. But, why are secularists so desperate to silence Christians - is our rejoicing THAT painful to their ears?

For example, I wouldn't want my children being taught the precepts of any particular religion in a public school.

Then strive to locate or build a community of like-minded individuals and vote precisely those policies into your local law. It's your money; they're your kids. I'd be wrong to try to gangster my minority views onto your community; you'd be well within your rights to tell me to piss off.

Now - why can't that hold true for Christians, where they represent a majority?

ID is a faith-based theory, with no real scientific merit.

Have you ever pondered the scientific improbability of your own existence? If ID is "without scientific merit', evolution is scientific slapstick.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Have you ever pondered the scientific improbability of your own existence? If ID is "without scientific merit', evolution is scientific slapstick.

ID is not about science. It is, however about politics and religion.

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, sponsored by the Discovery Institutue - a conservative think tank in Seattle - has been the driving force behind ID since 1996.

Since that time the Institute has relied on an aggressive PR campaign to promote its views. This unlike other bodies of science, including evolutionary science that must present their evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals. Playing on public opinion and ignorance is no substitute for rigorous scientific review.

Part of CRSC's strategy is called "the Wedge" which seeks to "renew" America's culture by rooting its institutions, especially education in evangelical religious views. In 1996, <i>Darwin on Trial</i> author and CRSC founder stated, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion..."

Scientific theories are rooted in <i>a posteriori</i>, or inductive reasoning, which involves the observation of relations between events over time, which permits us to infer general principles from specific events. The process is also self-correcting as knew knowledge and expreince lead to new inferences. This is not the case with ID. ID is rooted in <i>a priori</i> or deductive reasoning, which takes us from a given premise to a formally valid conclusion...from the general to the specific. The evidence supporting the premise is manipulated to fit it, regardless of the any genuine correspondence to the facts. Any conclusions drawn from this process, while they may be logically valid, may be true or false, given the facts given to support it. Thus no genuinely useful conclusions can be reached.

As for you "sicentific slapstick", that is more appropriate to ID as evolutionary science has a rather larger and more extensive body of evidence in support of it than ID, which has only opinion and hyperbole as its sole supports.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Have you ever pondered the scientific improbability of your own existence? If ID is "without scientific merit', evolution is scientific slapstick.

ID is not about science. It is, however about politics and religion.

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, sponsored by the Discovery Institutue - a conservative think tank in Seattle - has been the driving force behind ID since 1996.

Since that time the Institute has relied on an aggressive PR campaign to promote its views. This unlike other bodies of science, including evolutionary science that must present their evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals. Playing on public opinion and ignorance is no substitute for rigorous scientific review.

Part of CRSC's strategy is called "the Wedge" which seeks to "renew" America's culture by rooting its institutions, especially education in evangelical religious views. In 1996, <i>Darwin on Trial</i> author and CRSC founder stated, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion..."

Scientific theories are rooted in <i>a posteriori</i>, or inductive reasoning, which involves the observation of relations between events over time, which permits us to infer general principles from specific events. The process is also self-correcting as knew knowledge and expreince lead to new inferences. This is not the case with ID. ID is rooted in <i>a priori</i> or deductive reasoning, which takes us from a given premise to a formally valid conclusion...from the general to the specific. The evidence supporting the premise is manipulated to fit it, regardless of the any genuine correspondence to the facts. Any conclusions drawn from this process, while they may be logically valid, may be true or false, given the facts given to support it. Thus no genuinely useful conclusions can be reached.

As for you "sicentific slapstick", that is more appropriate to ID. Evolutionary science has a rather larger and more extensive body of evidence in support of it than ID, which has only opinion and hyperbole as its sole supports.

 

[Avatar4321]

ID is not about science. It is, however about politics and religion.

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, sponsored by the Discovery Institutue - a conservative think tank in Seattle - has been the driving force behind ID since 1996.

Since that time the Institute has relied on an aggressive PR campaign to promote its views. This unlike other bodies of science, including evolutionary science that must present their evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals. Playing on public opinion and ignorance is no substitute for rigorous scientific review.

Part of CRSC's strategy is called "the Wedge" which seeks to "renew" America's culture by rooting its institutions, especially education in evangelical religious views. In 1996, <i>Darwin on Trial</i> author and CRSC founder stated, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion..."

Scientific theories are rooted in <i>a posteriori</i>, or inductive reasoning, which involves the observation of relations between events over time, which permits us to infer general principles from specific events. The process is also self-correcting as knew knowledge and expreince lead to new inferences. This is not the case with ID. ID is rooted in <i>a priori</i> or deductive reasoning, which takes us from a given premise to a formally valid conclusion...from the general to the specific. The evidence supporting the premise is manipulated to fit it, regardless of the any genuine correspondence to the facts. Any conclusions drawn from this process, while they may be logically valid, may be true or false, given the facts given to support it. Thus no genuinely useful conclusions can be reached.

As for you "sicentific slapstick", that is more appropriate to ID. Evolutionary science has a rather larger and more extensive body of evidence in support of it than ID, which has only opinion and hyperbole as its sole supports.

Heaven forbid someone question scientific theory. They might discover something wrong with it.

 

[mrsx]

Heaven forbid someone question scientific theory. They might discover something wrong with it.

Our Bible-thumping brothers are lexically challenged and confuse "theory" with "hypothesis." Evolution is a theory, so is gravity. ID was an hypothesis when Thomas Aquinas proposed it in the 13th century. The failure of all attempts to validate ID through investigation relegated it to the category of fantasy.

the·o·ry n., pl. the·o·ries. 1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena

hy·poth·e·sis n., pl. hy·poth·e·ses Abbr. hyp., hypoth. 1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation

fan·ta·sy pl. fan·ta·sies. 1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. 2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy. 3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit. 4.a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

 

[archangel]

No...No...No...You answer my question first. If the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation, why wasn't Christianity explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

And let's see, John Adams was a Unitarian, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist/Episcoalian, George Washington was a Deist/Episcopalian, Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, as were Ethan Allen , James Madison and James Monroe. Hardly the absolutists the religious right wing-nuts whish them to be.

You are dismissed. Run along now, I here your mommy calling you. Come back when you aren't so wet behind the ears.

Amazing you are Wooly Bully...Deist/Episcopalian is a oxymoron...Being that Deist means..system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation...and Episcopalian being of the Protestant faith which is Christian and takes from revelations...and since deists have many faces including adherence to Christian beliefs...you are once again wrong lil' professor...now you run along and go play with your distorted text's....

 

[musicman]

As for you "sicentific slapstick", that is more appropriate to ID. Evolutionary science has a rather larger and more extensive body of evidence in support of it than ID, which has only opinion and hyperbole as its sole supports.

Don't forget common sense.

Oh, I'm sorry....you already have.