If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: As for the God-fearing attributes of the Framers, they were politicians of the time and the custom was to express a level of civility and piety in their public discourse. And very little has changed in that regard today, when even the most secular pols feel a need to make a fetish of religious belief and piety (prayer breakfasts, well-covered church attendance, etc.), at least when they're up for (re)election or involved in some scandal. I think it's interesting that any politician publicly embracing religion seems always portrayed as either partaking in demagoguery or attempting to create a state religion. I'm unaware of that being the case. I think I can tell the difference between political humbug and true belief. I have no doubt about, say, the sincerity of Senator Lieberman's beliefs, nor do I (generally) doubt the sincerity of President Bush's. But when they start making a big public deal out of it and mentioning God at every (politically) opportune moment, it starts to smell. Seems secularists want religion strictly confined within the walls of church, temple, mosque, whatever, not be seen in public on pain of "promoting religion". How do you figure that? You can decorate your house, you car, or yourself with Crosses, Stars of David, Crescents, Ankhs, Prayer wheels or Pentagrams all you want. You can spend every waking minute of every day praising your god(s) as much as you chose. Just don't try and force me to agree with you, and don't try to force me to listen to you in a public building/space that I'm constrained to be in. You want to stand on your soapbox in the park and tell everyone _who wants to listen_ about the wonders of your religion, knock yourself out. But don't do it at the top of your lungs to people who have no interest in what you're saying, and who can't move out of earshot while still enjoying the location. Allowing nativity scenes on public commons is NOT "promoting religion", and is actually suppressing it! No, it's saying that government can not favor one religion over another, nor can they sponsor one or many. You want a nativity scene, feel free to pay for it (or get like-minded individiuals to do so) and put it up on your lawn. Which is pretty much what happens around here. You want to have a stone sculpture monument of the Ten Commandments? Be my guest, and mount it in your yard, home or (in some cases) business. But it doesn't belong in the Courthouse. The founding fathers were keenly aware of all the problems that resulted from government promoting religion. On the other hand, they were deeply religious and were not prone to create an agnostic or atheist US either. Some were deeply religious, some went through the motions because it was expected, some were agnostic or atheist. You'd be pretty hard-pressed to describe Benjamin Franklin as "deeply religious." The important thing is that they all had the legal right to be of whatever religion they chose (including no religion) without any effect on their rights (well, in theory; practice was obviously often different, if you were Catholic, Jewish, etc.), after the passage of the 1st Amendment Bush has every right as an individual to make the religious based statements he has. Sure does, if he's speaking for himself and not for me. He apparently is sort of "born again" and his words more than likely aren't pandering to a religious audience. He has pandered to his religious base quite a lot, in the last election and now this one. Sometimes he's sincere, but in some cases he's throwing them a bone after making a political calculation. The hesitation about coming out and saying he'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage being a case in point. The decision itself, and the timing of it, was a political calculation through and through. Until he starts giving a particular religious group tax breaks or government funding, I'm not too concerned that the important Constitutional principle of church/state separation is being violated. And fortunately the Supreme Court has just found against the guy who sued the state of Washington (IIRR), because they refused to pay the scholarship they had awarded him when he wanted to use it to attend theology school. He seemed like a decent sort, but I certainly don't want my taxes to pay to support his particular faith (or any other). If his denomination needs ministers and he can't afford it himself, they can pay his way if they choose, but it shouldn't be coming out of my pocket. Guy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Robey Price wrote: snip Actually I'm paraphrasing the secular humanist view, we'd never call ourselves christians. Or, as the televangelists would have it, "Sekoolar Hoomanist," with roughly the same intonation they use when saying "Spawn of Satan" ;-) All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated "science". |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: The Constitution guarantees the "free expression thereof" and what you are claiming as a right is the repression of the constitutional rights of others, Guy. You are one seriously f*cked up dude. You have the right to watch gay porn...I have the right NOT to watch. You have the right to worship as you choose...I have the right NOT to worship. But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT religion. Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me. It is you that is attacking the civil rights of others, Guy. It bears repeating...you are one seriously f*cked up dude. Funny, but mo' debly f*cked up. Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do so within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a slow emergence of a new species over time. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated "science". LOL...you have distilled Richard Dawkins v Stephen Jay Gould to your terms, i.e. four or five sentences. Too funny, they could never have done that... Juvat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: All I have done is shown Price the limitations of his 150 year outdated "science". LOL...you have distilled Richard Dawkins v Stephen Jay Gould to your terms, i.e. four or five sentences. Too funny, they could never have done that... Jay Gould, the pope of the church of darwin, is apropriatly dead. Geological evidence demonstrates that species are created through some mechanism following a global cataclysim, completely in contrast to darwinian dogma. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT religion. I'm not...Guy's not...believe what you want, worship as you want. Be my guest. My lack of faith, my desire to be free from religion, doesn't interfere with you right to worship. JT you're just being silly. Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me. Actually that'd be your gay tendencies...and that's okay with me too. Whatever you do with another consenting adult is your business. Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do so within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a slow emergence of a new species over time. What's it gonna be JT. Stop waffling and pick a position. "If" evolution occurs? You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science." You're just being silly. I could care less if you choose Dawkins or Gould, they disagree about the details of evolution, but they both support evolution over creationism. I have no problem with that. Those differing opinions are interesting, but I don't care about the specifics. There is so much out there I find more interesting and the autodidact in me has a limited amount of time to spend on "finding things out." Which all goes back to the point, your religious beliefs are your beliefs. I don't want to take those away from you or anybody. Trying to transform this great country into some christian state would be as dangerous to the world as a proliferation of islamist states. So keep religion out of government. Juvat |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: But you have no right to interfere in the "free exercise thereof" WRT religion. I'm not...Guy's not...believe what you want, worship as you want. Be my guest. My lack of faith, my desire to be free from religion, doesn't interfere with you right to worship. JT you're just being silly. Sure, but I made you laugh. Your gay tendancies are of no interest to me. Actually that'd be your gay tendencies...and that's okay with me too. Whatever you do with another consenting adult is your business. Such projection. Geological evidence indicates that if evolution occurs at all it must do so within a single generation, completely falsifying the entire notion of a slow emergence of a new species over time. What's it gonna be JT. Stop waffling and pick a position. "If" evolution occurs? Hey, I'm just presenting science. You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science." No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring over a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological evidence. The quantum physics stuff is just experimenatally demonstrable and repeatable. You're just being silly. I could care less if you choose Dawkins or Gould, they disagree about the details of evolution, but they both support evolution over creationism. I have no problem with that. Those differing opinions are interesting, but I don't care about the specifics. There is so much out there I find more interesting and the autodidact in me has a limited amount of time to spend on "finding things out." Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer. Jay Gould believes in God now. Which all goes back to the point, your religious beliefs are your beliefs. I don't want to take those away from you or anybody. Trying to transform this great country into some christian state would be as dangerous to the world as a proliferation of islamist states. So keep religion out of government. I am not posting religion, you are. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: Hey, I'm just presenting science. According to Michael Denton? You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science." No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring over a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological evidence. This is a hoot! Too funny, this is actually hilarious. You are summarizing part of Gould's position between Punctuated Equilibrium and his concept of "phyletic gradualism." Apparently you think the crux of evolution is "the notional hypothesis of species occuring over a long period of natural selection." I'm guessing your emphasis in "long period." That would only be an aspect/theory of a mechanism of evolution, but...evolution is still a fact. Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer. Fast evolution? You mean Gould's & Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium that: PE postulates that speciation events comprise most of the evolutionary change seen in adaptation. PE explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. PE explains the relative stasis of most species. PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. PE also makes a statement concerning the pattern of fossils found. Jay Gould believes in God now. Too funny, sounds like you believe in Jay Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium. I am not posting religion, you are. Well alert your ISP 'cause somebody posting with your IP adress asserted in this thread that society without religion leads to psycosis; and our (Guy and me) freedom FROM religion in the US is a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of believers. Juvat |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver Engineering" confessed the following: Hey, I'm just presenting science. According to Michael Denton? You've already told us evolution has been discredited by Einstein (the gentleman of Quantum physics and relativity) now you're suggesting there may be something to, as you called it, "dog breeder science." No, I am pointing out that the notional hypothesis of species occuring over a long peoriod of natural selection is disputed by physical geological evidence. This is a hoot! Too funny, this is actually hilarious. You are summarizing part of Gould's position between Punctuated Equilibrium and his concept of "phyletic gradualism." Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious. Apparently you think the crux of evolution is "the notional hypothesis of species occuring over a long period of natural selection." I'm guessing your emphasis in "long period." That would only be an aspect/theory of a mechanism of evolution, but...evolution is still a fact. Once the period becomes short enough it is Creation. Fast evolution rapidly approaches creation, to a casual observer. Fast evolution? You mean Gould's & Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium that: PE postulates that speciation events comprise most of the evolutionary change seen in adaptation. PE explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. PE explains the relative stasis of most species. PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. PE also makes a statement concerning the pattern of fossils found. Nice band aids, but evolution becomes creation when explaining the fosil record that way. Jay Gould believes in God now. Too funny, sounds like you believe in Jay Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium. I believe Jay Gould made a frantic attempt to bring evolution into line with the fosil record, due to physical evidence proving Dariwin's notional hypotesis WRT the origin of species was false. Even in the evolutionist's odd world where the scientific method has a different definition than all of the rest of science, the criterion of "falsability" is demonstrated in that Darwin's idea is undoubtably false. I am not posting religion, you are. Well alert your ISP 'cause somebody posting with your IP adress asserted in this thread that society without religion leads to psycosis; and our (Guy and me) freedom FROM religion in the US is a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of believers. My assertion is a concept directly from Freudian psycology and is science, not religion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following: Gould's attempts to band aid together a plausable mechanism to replace Darwin's impossible one is what was hillarious. Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" at 1474 pages, some band-aid. Once the period becomes short enough it is Creation. This is too funny. How short is this period? And when did creation occur? [snip the short strokes of punctuated equilibrium] Nice band aids, but evolution becomes creation when explaining the fosil record that way. Quoi? JT are you trying to tell us you believe in "creation science?" A simple Yes or No will do. Even in the evolutionist's odd world where the scientific method has a different definition than all of the rest of science, the criterion of "falsability" is demonstrated in that Darwin's idea is undoubtably false. JT evolution is a fact...we see evidence all around us every day. The specific mechanisms of natural selection and evolution are debated all the time. My assertion is a concept directly from Freudian psycology and is science, not religion. OK...Frued. Again please clarify for me, are you implying you believe the so-called "creation science?" An answer would go a long way in understanding your posts. Juvat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 28th 04 11:30 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 05:26 PM |