Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Science vs. Republican Ignorance?

0 helpful
118 replies

by just_chilin

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

[b]Dinosaurs, evangelicals and the state[/b]

[b]Should the views of the religious right, many of whom are Republican party supporters, be adopted by the US government? In Washington, Justin Webb considers the implications and asks whether politics and religion make a good mix. [/b]

Check out this interesting articles on BBC at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4469590.stm

[b]Article Text Below:[/b]
--------------------------------------------------

Should the views of the religious right, many of whom are Republican party supporters, be adopted by the US government? In Washington, Justin Webb considers the implications and asks whether politics and religion make a good mix.

Should dinosaurs and religion mix?
We are having dinner at the house of some friends who are supporters of President Bush.

Their five-year-old son, a classmate of our children, takes me upstairs to see his collection of dinosaurs.

Little Meade is a passionate palaeontologist and this is a land of plenty so the room heaves with prehistoric life.

I am suitably impressed, but unknown to Meade I am not here to admire the bone structure of the dinosaurs.

I am in this room on assignment, because in modern America Meade's dinosaurs are at the heart of the travails of a political party and I need to find out something about Meade's parents which will affect our relationship.

I need to know what they told him about when the dinosaurs existed.

Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party, believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago as per the account in Genesis and the dinosaurs can only date from then, so the Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around with Adam and Eve.

In other words these Americans, heirs to every scientific advance in history, deny rational accounts of how the world came to exist.

And Meade's parents - I know his mum teaches Sunday school - might be among them.

I put the question to Meade: "When did the dinosaurs live?"

According to some, the age of the Grand Canyon is open to debate
There is an agonising pause as he considers it. American children are wonderfully earnest and Meade is not going to be rushed.

Eventually he says it is in a book his Dad bought him.

We hunt the tome, find it, open the page and behold a diagram which has been explained to Meade.

It all floods back.

The dinosaurs, he informs me with great authority and aplomb, are millions and millions and millions of years old. I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet.

But many modern members of the Republican party, including some in positions of great power, do not seem to be living on that planet.

[b]Central question [/b]

As the nation recovers this weekend from the worldly pleasures of the wonderfully inclusive festival of Thanksgiving, a festival which can appeal equally to atheist and Bible-basher, it seems to me that the central political question facing everyone here, far more important than any to do with Iraq or the deficit or Guantanamo Bay, is whether or not the Republican party, after decades of flirting, has finally got into bed with an irrational sect.

Describe an American as a Roman Catholic and you say nothing about his or her political and social beliefs.

In the state of Kansas they have succeeded in getting the science syllabus altered so that teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form

Left-wing flower-power Democrats can be Catholics, so can right-wing socially conservative Republicans.

American Jews, Hindus, even Muslims are not politically defined by their faith.

But evangelical Christians, operating inside the Republican party, have coalesced their energies and their resources around a set of beliefs on homosexuality, abortion and Darwinism which place them on the authoritarian right of every political question and at odds with science. They are campaigning, for instance, to tell visitors to the Grand Canyon that this wondrous sight is not millions of years old, which it is.

[b]Backlash[/b]

In the state of Kansas they have succeeded in getting the science syllabus altered so that teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form - a change the National Academy of Sciences said "would put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they took their place in the world."

This is serious stuff and Republicans who are not evangelical Christians have in recent weeks been organising a fight-back.

They have noticed two things. Number one, that the zealots are spending more energy fighting Charles Darwin than cutting taxes, and number two - and this is much more important - that the zealots outside Kansas are not receiving the support of the nation at large.

Did the board lose the election because they opposed evolution?
In the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, the local school board managed this year to get warmed up, creationism infiltrated into biology classes, and here is what happened.

A couple of weeks ago all eight members of the board who were up for re-election lost their seats.

"If there is a disaster in your area," the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson told the people of Dover, "don't turn to God - you just rejected Him from your city."

Mr Robertson is an important man: the former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at his university, and his views are sought on Supreme Court candidates and foreign affairs.

[b]Republican doubts [/b]

But should those views govern the Republican party?

Many members think not, particularly since President Bush is himself in such dire trouble now.

He famously told an interviewer that when deciding to go to war in Iraq he listened to the authority not of his dad but of a Higher Father.

And, Republicans are daring to think, if not quite say, out loud: "Look where that got him."

By Justin Webb
BBC Washington correspondent

118 replies

by Member 25348569

Can the "Evolution Lie" thread have pupped another offspring? The bastard child of EL and "Why I voted for GWB"? This could run to five thousand posts.

Seriously, this is how we see your country at times. Are we wrong? "I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet."

I hope so.

by sleepin'dawg

[i]The following was sent out by the Ayn Rand Institute which is not a liberal "think tank" by any stretch of the imagination. Interesting!!![/i]

The Kansas Board of Education has redefined science to make room for
the supernatural. But changing definitions will not alter the fact
that science and religion are incompatible.

Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. It does so
by logical inferences from observable facts and experimentation.
Science relies on reason and evidence.

Religion, in contrast, relies on supernatural "explanations" for
natural phenomena. It demands belief unsupported by evidence and/or
contrary to facts. Religion relies on faith.

Just as evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive and naturally
pitted against each other, so are science and religion. Changing
definitions will not change reality.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by maxwell edison

.
.....buy into religious fundamentalism.

It's such a small percentage, but the way they're covered, you'd think it's 100 percent.

~100 million GWB votes in 2004, and only ~1.5 million were "religious fundamentalists". Gee, there were probably 1.5 million Southern Baptist Democrat preachers alone campaigning -- I mean preaching -- from their church pulpits in 2004.

It's incredible how misinformation gets bought-into.

by john.a.wills

Objectivists are not conservatives, nor are libertarians. We tend to think of a continuum with communism at one end and the extreme right at the other, but the extreme right includes libertarians and objectivists (who share a great deal of economic theory) and fascists, who are as different from the libertarians as they are from the communists. I would place U.S. conservatives as somewhere midway between fascists and libertarians, not because they are undecided - though they are - but because they are at a different position in the triangle of politicoeconomic possibilities. As for Ayn Rand, she invented a religion called Objectivism, and the Ayn Rand Institute is more or less the curia for that religion, so if science is opposed to religion the ARI's work is antiscientific, just as much as the Kansas School Board's.

by maxwell edison

.
...not as it really is, but how those reporting how it presumably is want you to see it.

And I find it humorous that people who don't live here, some of whom have never even been here, know what it's like more than the ones who do live here.

Whenever I want to know what it's really like in America, I'll be sure to ask you. You surely know more about it than me. After all, I've only lived here for 50 years, while you, on the other hand, read the BBC.

by Member 25348569

Actually, Max. I don't think your country is like that at all. It's huge. It's diverse. It's got [b]everything[/b]. Most of everything that we in the UK have or do, somewhere in the US you push the envelope and do it bigger, smaller, more intensely (not always better). :p

To reiterate, the guy is a fairly lightweight correspondent - not one of the main political reporters, at all - but for a serious radio channel. His remit is, I guess, to report on some of the more interesting and alien things that exist in a country that is in some ways so much like our own and in others so very different.

If he's going to report on some of the religious differences then, as I said in my other post, the Religious Right have power and influence at the very top. The Religious Left do not mean a lot to us at the moment.

Don't throw your toys out of your pram over this. Let's keep the Defcon level fairly low for the moment.

Neil :D

p.s. I listen to the BBC Radio 4 a lot in the car. This piece (which I didn't hear) was part of "From Our Local Correspondent" where three BBC foreign reporters get a 10-minute slot each to report on something local to where they are sited. Serious, but lightweight - if that makes any sense.

by jdclyde

but only if you agree with the author it seems?

Attack any and all religion seems to be the goal of some, while others are content to just not believe themselves.

Why is this?

Why is it important to make sure no one believes in a religion?

When will the extreme religious groups respond to the extreme anti-religious groups? This will be ugly.

by Member 25348569

It was too hard to kill.

As for religion. It's a fine thing I guess but just doesn't work for me. But you can believe in it if you like. If you want allow something else to take the credit for what you are and the good that you do rather than your innate characteristic as a "good bloke" then be my guest. Don't expect me to applaud your judgement, though.

But what doesn't work is when a group stands four-square in the path of overwhelming evidence and denies that evidence and twists and turns and, well, lies. Creationism fits that description.

As for extreme anti-religious groups, we don't have any over here and I'm not sure who really fits that decription over where you are. Most of the religious fundamentalists we have now are Muslim with their own agenda. We don't really have any Christian fundis so do excuse us for being curious. We got rid of the Pilgrim Fathers because they were getting on our t:ts praying all of the time instead of getting on with their work. It's interesting to see what they developed into and feel smug that we were right to kick them out.

by montgomery gator

I agree. Let people believe what they want about creationism and evolution, and let them teach their children either or both theories. I see the issue as still not settled. I am familiar with both theories, and see merit in both, and see a combination, with God guiding evolution over time. The days of Genesis 1 can be interpreted as periods of time (perhaps millions of years each, as scientific evidence seems to indicate) with God guiding the creation through evolution. I find it a lot easier to accept a God-guided evolution to create the detail and complexity we have today over the idea of pure atheistic randomness of natural selection. But I will not force anyone to believe what I conjecture, or ridicule anyone for disagreeing and being either a pure evolutionist or a pure 6 literal day creationist.

One can still succeed and still believe either one. If you are in the life sciences field, it is necessary to understand the theory of evolution to understand most of the scientific literature in that field of study, but for most academic (non-biological) disciplines, it does not matter.

Let people learn as they see fit, without requiring or prohibiting the teaching of either evolutionism or creationism, or a combination of both, like intelligent design.

by absolutely

"Why is it important to make sure no one believes in a religion?"

It isn't. It's important to make sure no one forces their religious beliefs on their neighbors, but rather that people of all religions treat their neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated.

by maxwell edison

.
The "Christian Right", as usually defined, turned out 1.5 million voters in 2004, presumably all Republican.

The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's One Thousand Churches Connected Program, is, by its own definition, "its congregation's first step toward financial freedom and economic empowerment. Through the church leadership, communities can achieve financial security and economic equality." But we all know how they attempt to achieve these things. This religious organization, led by the Reverend Jessie Jackson, supports Democrats en masse. Moreover, Jackson's organization is but a small subset of a much larger religious population of Southern Baptists whose churches have become no more than a vehicle to "preach" Democrat Party agenda issues from its pulpit.

Why is the former continually demonized as a religious movement infringing into politics, while the latter, a much larger religious movement, is given a free pass concerning its infringements into politics? Could it be one is Republican while the other is Democrat?

Why is President Bush, who has never "campaigned" from a church pulpit, at least not that I've heard of, continually criticized for his religious beliefs and/or supporters, but nary a mention of John Kerry and Bill Clinton, BOTH of whom regularly "campaigned" from many a church pulpit. Could it be one is Republican while the other is Democrat?

And I wonder what Jimmy Carter's take on this is? Are his beliefs, which are identical as described, just as loony and just as demonized?

I have to wonder, what's the agenda of the author?

by Member 25348569

Why does he have to have an "agenda" - at least in the way that I think you mean. Justin Webb is one of the BBC's Washington correspondents. He mainly reports on Politics and Current Affairs on the radio. He reports the news that's believed to be relevant for his British audience on Radio 4 (me, for instance).

To put it simply, Max, the reason why the "Evangelical Right" is reported with so much more prominence that the "Evangelical Left" is that we perceive over here - rightly or wrongly - that one of the former grouping is the leader of the strongest military and economic power on Earth and that the group as a whole have influence at the highest level.

The Left don't get anywhere near as much coverage because they aren't in power. When they are, then they'll get reported on and we'll probably ignore the Republicans. Carter, for instance, means what to the UK? Not a lot. Jackson, neither.

p.s. Are you up to speed on the leadership battle between the two Davids in the Tory Party?

(Please don't say you are else I'll look a complete idiot with my argument completely wiped)

by jdclyde

You will not hear reports of the Evangelical Left, because they spend too many years DEMONIZING the EVANGELICAL RIGHT and religion in general.

You NEVER hear a report talking about the "evangelical right" in a good term, nor of ANYTHING good that is done by this group.

The "liberal media" and the majority on the left, ONLY bring up religion to try to "smear" someone and is ALWAYS reported negatively.

They believe in freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion, ESPECIALY Christianity.

by maxwell edison

.
Truth, honesty, and full disclosure in reporting.

How can a "story" possibly be fully discussed if only a small part of the "full story" is disclosed?

And how can a "story" possibly be honestly discussed if it's littered with untruths, mistruths, or deceptive half-truths?

by maxwell edison

.
What about your own ignorance if you buy into such nonsense? And your own ignorance (and agenda?) for not only posting the stupid story in the first place, but changing your title to be more pointed?

At least when I start these types of discussions, I wear my agenda on me sleeve for all to see. What's your agenda?

by just_chilin

We are talking about science being influenced by the
"Evangelical Right" who seem to have all the power and overly supported by dumbo.

That is why such discussions never go anywhere because instead of facing the fact that the "Christian Right" is confusing young American scholars, you start blaming the "Christian Left".

Think again...before you say anything

by maxwell edison

.
I'm merely challenging the premise of it.

If you don't like it, or can't respond to it, too bad.

Moreover, the "Evangelical Right" doesn't have all the power, or even any of the power, when it comes to TEACHING science in government schools. The teachers union does.

And I didn't "blame" the "Christian Left" for anything, at least no more than you "blamed the Christian Right". Quite frankly, I'm an equal-opportunity blamer.

by jdclyde

because asking people what their devious intentions are might show them out to be exactly what they are. Disingenuous people that have their own agenda and will gleefully misrepresent any idea or group that doesn't fall lock-step in line with what they want.

How DARE anyone be a Christian in this day and age. Don't they know how unpopular that will make them with the Liberals?

by maxwell edison

.
But with a low defcon level, to be sure.

Actually, I'm rather bored with these types of discussions, they're no more than the same story, different verse, and I won't really contribute much more than I already have -- and certainly not to the 2000 message level.

The more I do this, the more I realize it's rather pointless. (You still owe me a beer, however.)

by Member 25348569

I'm really just posting for fun, here, while I drink my bedtime hot lemon and brandy (bloody cold!) and watch a documentary on streaking. I wasn't really expecting so much so fast.

I'm not really sure of the original posters motives either. We did the EL, religion, whatever threads to death and I don't think that there's much else to say.

by sleepin'dawg

Religion implys the recognition of a higher authority. There is none of that with Rand, in fact quite the oposite. The Id is the only authority. Read her thoughts on the merits of selfishness.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by john.a.wills

I have read The Virtue of Selfishness. The ego rather than the id is the source of authority (not the best phrase). To act on one's own whims, the prophetess wrote, is as wrong as to act on the whims of another. If choice of God's will as a basis for action is a religious choice, then choice of one's own objective good is also a religious choice. If "God exists" is a religious statement then "God does not exist" is also a religous statement. The religion even has at least two sects, the ARI and the IOS.

by absolutely

"God does not exist" is not a tenet of Objectivism. "God may not exist" is. Another is "I certainly exist". The logical consequence is Ayn Rand's philosophy of rational self-interest, called Objectivism, which is entirely logically derived from fact and therefore includes no faith-based premises. It is therefore false that "If choice of God's will as a basis for action is a religious choice, then choice of one's own objective good is also a religious choice." (john.a.wills@)

Choice of one's own objective good (and definition of that good) is not based on a single unknown, therefore is not a matter of faith, therefore is not a religious choice.

by road-dog

The rub is upon who's morality will policy and law be based?

Personal morality affects voting whether or not one's own moral views fit into any particular pigeon hole or under any accepted banner.

Even if one is agnostic or atheist and votes upon their personal morality irrespective of any religion, they are still engaging in attempts to impose their belief system on society.

I have made the personal leap into christianity in the last year and a half after events in my life prompted me to reevaluate the basic questions about the nature of man.

I question the strict creationist view in light of my accepted scientific understanding. I think that God built each of us with a deeply ingrained desire to come to terms with creation on an individual basis. (I've got a lot more on this, but that is another debate entirely, IE the nature of man and God)

The ultra religious right does us all a disservice by attempting to co-opt public education to support their religious worldview by squelching all others. In this instance however, I don't see this as being the case. A side by side presentation of creationism and evolution is probably a healthy thing.

Personally, I'm inclined to do away with federally controlled public education entirely or removing centralized control of curricula in favor of local control so that community standards will drive presentation via school board elections.

As for generalizations about christian fundamentalists being "in control of the Republican Party", I'm not buying it, any more than I believe that the far left is in control of the Democratic party. They are perhaps the most militant and vociferous elements of each.

Each are the narrow ends of the bell curve demographically speaking.

by Member 25348569

The article, which was the transcript of a [b]British[/b] radio production, was obviously then aimed at a British audience. It was also a piece mainly covering the fundamental Christian Right's attitude to science.

"But evangelical Christians, operating inside the Republican party, have coalesced their energies and their resources around a set of beliefs on homosexuality, abortion and Darwinism which place them on the authoritarian right of every political question and at odds with science." i.e. a small group operating with a common purpose. What the piece also goes on to say is that they're meeting resistance from the majority.

Anyway, as both the source and the intended audience are outside of the US I'm surprised at the reaction.

As for "A side by side presentation of creationism and evolution", well, that's like a side by side presentation of flower arranging and landscape gardening. The link between the two subjects is extremely tenuous!

I'm happy for your conversion but I made the personal leap out of christianity many years ago after events in my life prompted me to reevaluate the basic questions about the nature of man. Hmmmm. Seems like I've heard that before.

Bw happy. :D

by tony hopkinson

yet law in a multi-cultural society, of which the US is the archetype, should be based on ethics. Morals after all are cultural. If you make laws based on morality, then in any sane and viable society you make a sizable percentage of your population both immoral and illegal, that will quickly turn it in the an insane an unviable one.
You cannot impose your morality on those who do not share your belief system, to become moral in your eyes they would have to start being immoral.

As soon as you start defining sins as crimes or vice versa, you are on the intentionally well paved road to hell, to paraphrase your own philosophy.

by jdclyde

I see people legislating anti-smoking laws more and more in places that are questionable at best.

According to your statement, we should legally recognise the taking of multiple wives.

How about the muslim ethics of burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death if she gets caught committing adultery?

How about the "cultural" belief that used to allow a black man to be hung if he was caught with a white woman?

There HAS to be some kind of STANDARD that you DO hold people to. Do we let drunks pass out in the parks where our kids play? Why not? That is just a MORAL judgement on your part to stop them from doing as they wish, right?

How about two concenting adults from having sex in public? If it is concenting, who are they hurting? We should go ahead and make prostitution completely legal globally with no restrictions on when or where, because your making a MORAL judgement?

So yes, you can and SHOULD inpose your moral standards on people that CHOOSE to live in a community with like beliefs. You don't like the community moral standards somewhere? Isn't it the person that is moving INTO that community the ones that are pushing THEIR LACK of morals on the people that were already there?

Laws take away rights, this is true. But to a point that is REQUIRED for people from different backgrounds to get along.

We even had a lawsuit in Florida where a Muslim woman was TRYING to claim following our laws of having your picture on your drivers license was a violation of her religion. The drivers license is our accepted form of Identification in the states. If she getting this license violates her religion, then she can always take the bus! Or do you think she should be able to ignore the laws of this new country she finds herself in?

by maxwell edison

.
The writer begins by asking the question, "Should the views of the religious right, many of whom are Republican party supporters, be adopted by the US government?"

What kind of question is that?

First of all, he hasn't defined "the religious right". He builds his entire premise on this vague and often misguided -- and very negative, I might add -- stereotype that's been perpetrated over the last few decades, primarily by any number of "left-leaning" groups. Who labeled these people the "religious right"? And who, exactly, are they? The Democrat Party and their advocates have labeled them such, that's who. And before you go on and demonize a group of people simply because of who they are, or who they are presumed to be, it should be made perfectly clear who labeled them in such a way in the first place, and why.

"Many of whom are Republican party supporters", he goes on to say. Well so what? (Not to mention he's failed to support that assertion.) The USA is a nation of laws, not of parties, and not of men. And the government is based on those laws, not on the whims and desires of any political party. Now granted, the party agendas do, from time to time, go on to ultimately become law, but only after much debate, and only under the umbrella of what's allowed or disallowed by the constitution. Slavery was abolished by groups of people lobbying the government, many of whom were -- heaven forbid -- religious people. Women won the right to vote because of groups of people lobbying the government. Prohibition became law because of groups of people lobbying the government. Prohibition was later repealed because of groups of people lobbying the government. The whole public school system was created in the first place by groups of people lobbying the government. Why would they be seen as out-of-line by lobbying for change? That's the way it works, and BOTH major political parties partake in the same process. I have to wonder why the writer seems to be demonizing the Republican Party just as he's demonizing the "religious right", for only doing what's totally within, not only their right, but perhaps even their sense of duty?

And the writer asks, "Should the views of the religious right ..... be adopted by the US government?" Well, why not? As long as, like I mentioned, those views remain consistent with what's allowed by the constitution. Consider this. The "religious right", whoever they are, also happened to be citizens of the United States. Just like the environmental left, the libertarians, the greenies, the isolationists, the world-view proponents, the socialists, the war hawks, the peace doves, the elderly, various racial groups, and any other "group" you might name, they all have a right to lobby the government in an attempt to advance their views. Why is it wrong for the "religious right", whoever they are, to do that very thing? Can you imagine if someone asked, should the views of the NAACP ..... be adopted by the US government? Or should the views of the AARP ..... be adopted by the US government? What a silly question! This particular group, the religious right, whoever they are, is being deemed illegitimate simply because of their beliefs and desires. They have just as much a right as you or I, or any other "group" you might name, to live however they please; and they have just as much a right to lobby THEIR government as anyone else.

So there you go. His whole article was based on, what could only be called, and extremely stupid and ignorant question. What does that probably say for his answers?

Nonetheless, I will continue to dissect the rest of the article -- one stupid sentence at a time.

by just_chilin

I am more concerned with the evangelical vs. scientific facts.
The writer might be baised but he still has a point.

by maxwell edison

.
The writer said, ".....because in modern America Meade's dinosaurs are at the heart of the travails of a political party ..... Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party, believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago as per the account in Genesis and the dinosaurs can only date from then, so the Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around with Adam and Eve."

The tone of his entire story is that the Republican Party is defined by, and controlled by, "the religious right". What an utterly stupid thing to suggest. This is not even up to the level of a mistruth, or even a half-truth. It's only a 1 percent truth, at best; and it's a downright lie and/or an attempt to deceive at worst. As I mentioned in a previous massage, only 1.5 million people out of well over 100 million who voted for GWB and/or other Republican candidates were considered to be part of the "religious right".

And then look at the way he uses words to portray false images. "Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party....."

Define "millions of Americans" and define "most".

Millions defined: More than one million.

Most defined: More than 50 percent (or more than any other).

Our population, by the way, is ~300 million.

Millions, if it refers to two million, is LESS than one percent. If "millions" means three million, then it's only 1 percent. And then he tags on a word like "most" to finish his deception.

This guy is out to attack not only "the religious right", but the entire Republican Party as well.

by maxwell edison

.
The writer went on to say, "In other words these Americans, heirs to every scientific advance in history, deny rational accounts of how the world came to exist. And Meade's parents - I know his mum teaches Sunday school - might be among them. I put the question to Meade: 'When did the dinosaurs live?' ..... There is an agonizing pause as he considers it. American children are wonderfully earnest and Meade is not going to be rushed ..... Eventually he says it is in a book his Dad bought him. We hunt the tome, find it, open the page and behold a diagram which has been explained to Meade ..... The dinosaurs, he informs me with great authority and aplomb, are millions and millions and millions of years old. I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet ..... But many modern members of the Republican party, including some in positions of great power, do not seem to be living on that planet."

I read this section of the story several times, and I'm still not sure what he's suggesting. He's mixing a discussion with a child and Republicans. This is a child he's talking to. "Millions" of children believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause and the Boogie Man under his bed. What's his friggin point? Oh good, he says. This child DOES know that dinosaurs are millions and millions and millions of years old. "But many modern members of the Republican party, including some in positions of great power, do not .....", he suggests.

Is he for real? I challenge him -- or YOU, since you posted the story and are defending him -- to name even ONE Republican, especially those "in positions of great power", who believes anything other than the notion that dinosaurs are millions and millions and millions of years old. Just ONE. Name just One.

That, too, does not even rise to the level of a half-truth, does it?

by Member 25348569

Has anyone asked any of them.

Mr. Bush, do you believe that the biblical account of the creation of mankind is a true depiction of what occurred?

How would he answer?

by maxwell edison

.
And then he says, for some unknown reason, "According to some, the age of the Grand Canyon is open to debate."

But he forgot to enlighten us as to the real age of the Grand Canyon, or why he made such a connection, or what he was suggesting. Perhaps it's because, according to EVERYONE the age of the Grand Canyon is open to debate. And what part of the Grand Canyon is he talking about here? It was actually formed in stages and by a variety of factors. But what's his friggin point?

What an absolutely stupid thing for him to say.

by Member 25348569

which is what is believed by creationists and what is stated in the book in question. "The canyon was formed as a result of the aftereffects of Noah's flood, a worldwide global flood," "Most of the canyon was formed by a lot of water over a relatively short period of time."

Bollocks.

I think most rational people who take a scientific viewpoint and have a point to make are merely arguing the absolute starting date of the Colorado plateau uplift that started the canyon, 60m years, 65m years. The difference between that sort of disagreement and the creationist view was obvious in the piece.

Not stupid at all.

by maxwell edison

.
The writer continues, "As the nation recovers this weekend from the worldly pleasures of the wonderfully inclusive festival of Thanksgiving, a festival which can appeal equally to atheist and Bible-basher, it seems to me that the central political question facing everyone here, far more important than any to do with Iraq or the deficit or Guantanamo Bay, is whether or not the Republican party, after decades of flirting, has finally got into bed with an irrational sect."

First of all, I must note, I believe he probably meant to say bible-thumper, not bible-basher. Perhaps that's just an American versus British thing, I don't know for sure, but I would consider an atheist synonymous to "bible-basher", not the opposite. But I digress.

He wondered, ".....whether or not the Republican party, after decades of flirting, has finally got into bed with an irrational sect."

Wait a minute. Hold the phone. Now it's a "sect"? And an irrational one, at that?

He gives the impression, up to now, that the entire Republican Party, all 100 million of them, are card-carrying members of the "religious right". And now all those people are in a "sect"? This is just too ridiculous to even comment any further. (My previous comments apply here as well.)

And he thinks this is "... far more important than any to do with Iraq or the deficit or Guantanamo Bay." I wonder if he thinks it's more important than global warming as well?

It's funny that he used the word irrational. That's exactly what I was thinking about him. (And I still don't get the "Thanksgiving" connection.)

by maxwell edison

.
He said, "In the state of Kansas they have succeeded in getting the science syllabus altered so that teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form."

Another challenge for him -- through YOU.

Please take any direct quote from any Kansas public school science syllabus that says "teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form".

Or if that's too tough an assignment, find a direct quote from any Kansas public school science syllabus that even hints that "teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form".

His assertion sounded pretty cut-and-dry to me, and it was pretty precise and direct. So back it up. What does the Kansas public science school syllabus really say?

I'll bet you a dollar to dirt that he's not even close. But he said it, you support him, so you prove it.

It this tantamount to a half-lie? Or is this, too, not yet up to that lofty level?

by maxwell edison

.
He said, "Describe an American as a Roman Catholic and you say nothing about his or her political and social beliefs. ..... Left-wing flower-power Democrats can be Catholics, so can right-wing socially conservative Republicans.

I guess that's why the Roman Catholic Pope just recently formally excluded gays from entering the priesthood, reinforced what he calls the abomination of abortion, and so on. However, he was conveniently overlooking such things when he was attempting to make his point. Which was, I suppose, any Christians, other than roman Catholics, are Republicans. Tell that to Jessie Jackson.

He says, "American Jews, Hindus, even Muslims are not politically defined by their faith", along with the aforementioned Roman Catholics. Well, neither are other Christians. He's just trying to make the stretch that they are.

by maxwell edison

.
The writer said, "But evangelical Christians, operating inside the Republican party, have coalesced their energies and their resources around a set of beliefs on homosexuality, abortion and Darwinism which place them on the authoritarian right of every political question and at odds with science. They are campaigning, for instance, to tell visitors to the Grand Canyon that this wondrous sight is not millions of years old, which it is."

I'll bet you don't know how he streeeeeeetched this fish-tale, do you?

There aren't ANY people anywhere who are, "campaigning to tell visitors to the Grand Canyon that this wondrous sight is not millions of years old".

What a total crock of B.S.

The exact opposite is more close to being true. It's the "anti-religious" people are trying to get the Grand Canyon gift shop to remove from its shelves a book called, Grand Canyon: A Different View. And because a book in on the shelf of a store, this writer stretches that to mean, "people are campaigning to tell visitors to the Grand Canyon that this wondrous sight is not millions of years old". Worst case scenario is that some people just want to keep the book on the shelf.

So is this a half-truth? Or is there no truth to it at all?

But yes, no doubt. Let's ban all books that might say something we don't like or agree with.

by Member 25348569

Of course we shouldn't ban books - any books. Just burn them.

However, Max, you [b]must[/b] try and see this piece from the perspective of the intended listening audience. As I said many times in the EL thread, the concepts of creationism or intelligent design are almost totally unknown to the majority of the UK. Darwinism is just an assumed fact. The thought of a book on sale in the Grand Canyon bookshop proposing that the Canyon is only 5,000 years old is, to a UK audience, such a wild idea that the piece's author gets it dead right from our perspective.

The real problem with this thread is that the original BBC source material was never intended for a US audience because the cultural referents are just not the same.

Punch the original poster out.

Oh. You have.

by maxwell edison

.
My "agenda", as I suggested, is truth in reporting. Embellished "facts" when reported by a reporter as truth are, in my opinion, worse than out-right lies. My whole point in entering this discussion was not to get into the creationism versus everything-else-ism argument. Far from it.

In fact, I'm with you in that regard. I'd rather sit on the sidelines, sip a beer, cold or otherwise, and just watch the fireworks. But somebody had to set the record straight with this so-called "reporter". What a hack!

But I will say one thing. This book .....

http://www.canyonministries.com/index_files/Bookinfo.htm

..... isn't going to change anyone's views. All it does is provide yet another product to a particular target audience. No one's mind will be changed one way or the other. No one's life will be effected one way or the other. It's all about providing the right product for the right consumer. No more; no less.

That book is no different than the ones sold in Roswell to the people who "believe". The true believers will buy it; the nonbelievers will buy something else or nothing at all.

And it's all much ado about nothing. (Except to those who always try to make something out of nothing to advance their own agenda.)

By the way, is Bible-basher in the UK the same as a Bible-thumper, as I might call it? I don't speak English, you know, just American.

by road-dog

This is the irony of ironies. Those who dispute the "value" of this book and desire its removal are intending to silence an opposing view. Oddly, the book's title acknowledges that opposing views exist! That seems eminently more fair than the treatment the book itself is receiving. It amuses me when people project their own biases upon others. Particularly when it is so clumsy and blatant.

by maxwell edison

I'm running out of time (and patience) with this. Let's just cut to the chase

I'm going to skip over some sentences, and just rely on what I've said up to now, as the same will apply to almost everything I skipped.

But let's get to the grand finale.

The writer said, "He famously told an interviewer that when deciding to go to war in Iraq he listened to the authority not of his dad but of a Higher Father."

Wait a minute, he "listened to the authority of a Higher Father when deciding to go to war in Iraq", the writer suggested? This makes it sound like President Bush received a message from God to wage a Holy War! Wrong - big time!

Who was this interviewer of whom he speaks. Answer: It was Bob Woodward of the Washington Post who was interviewing President Bush for a book Woodward was writing, and President Bush graciously granted him unprecedented access.

What was the full context of that statement? (It's in Woodward's book, by the way, if you care to read it for yourself.) But here it is.

Keep in mind that, up to that particular point in time, many people have been blasting President Bush as, somehow, being a puppet of his father and his father's people, not capable of being his own man, so to speak. So when Bob Woodward asked President Bush whether he consulted his father, the former president, about Iraq, GWB became uncomfortable in answering the question. If he made it sound as if he constantly consulted his father, he would appear as the "Little Bush", as he was so often described. So he answered that question this way.

"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."

You asked me to point out the "half-truths", and I believe I've done that -- and much more.

You're welcome.

by just_chilin

The writer said, "He famously told an interviewer that when deciding to go to war in Iraq he listened to the authority not of his dad but of a [b]Higher Father[/b]."

So was he joking when he said that?
If so why?

by jdclyde

I am not advocating any stance, because my stance as been stated before but is not the focus of this discussion.

What my point is, there are many here that are trying to take all references of religion out of all walks of life.

We have an official holiday over here where governmental workers get that time off with pay. It is called Christmas (you may have heard of it). It lately seems that the idea of taking these days off for Christmas is offensive to some so they wish it to be called "Winter break" and other such trivial things. While they fight over what to call it, I don't see many refusing to take that day off with pay?

Then there is now a big push to say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Stores are choosing to not say Merry Christmas, but still are there to get in on all the business of people buying Christmas Presents!

We have an organization that once had a noble calling, called the ACLU. This organization has long since been hijacked and is now a "den of scum and villany". They will take on a case of anyone BUT a Christian that is discriminated against. They have taken on the case of NAMBLA, defending their RIGHT to post HOW-TO's on molesting little boys. Right here in Michigan, they have taken on the case of "the cussin canoist" where Mr. Boomer fell in the water and proceeded to swear for what is reported as 5 minutes straight as families canoed by. He got a ticket that would have cost him about $80 dollars US, but the ACLU stepped in and made him the posterchild for the RIGHT to being a foul-mouthed scumbag in public and won.

Many here are content to not make you get on your knees and pray.

Many here also wish to have a CHRISTMAS tree in the local parks. How can ANYONE be offended by a decorated tree that draws people from all over to see them?

Note, this brings in business to the local stores and restarants so it DOES benift everyone regardless of if you believe in Christmas or not.

I don't expect your applauds, but I don't expect to get razzed over it either.

I tell people "Merry Christmas" at this time of the year. People that don't believe in Christianity can CHOOSE one of two choices.

ONE - get offended that I wished them a merry something they don't believe in

TWO - take it as the heart felt well wishes it was intended as.

If someone prays to the Sun God for mine and my families well being, I don't get offended as I will take all the well wishes I can get.

Merry Christmas Neil.

by montgomery gator

May you have a "Festivus for the Rest of Us", along with your Merry Christmas. I celebrate both!! Got an aluminum pole in my cubicle.

by jdclyde

Do they do lap dances too? ]:)

I could get into celebrating like that!

Oh, that wasn't your intention? Well, will take it anyways!

by Member 25348569

We wish people "Happy Christmas". I don't know why but Merry Christmas is only used in "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year".

Whatever. Although it's really too early it is December here, now (just) so you have a Happy Christmas. How is it going to work out with the Things and She Who Must Be Avoided?

Of course, I only post on here for fun and reparte (except with Creationists! With them, it's personal!) and the odd wind-up so I would class myself as a Choice Two person.

We have the PC brigade as well; "festival lights", "seasonal lights", "Don't sing Carols as it will upset the Muslims/Jews/Hindus". Bollocks to them. I sing carols (badly). Last year I went to a Christmas midnight service with some friends and sang my bits off. I just didn't pray to anything or anybody. I put a tenner in the collection plate. I'm not going this year but just because I have a prior invite elsewhere.

Neil :)

by montgomery gator

Reminds me of the recent comments about the Archbishop of York that Gadgetgirl (I think it was) mentioned in another thread. He seems to agree with you (at least the part about the PC brigade, not on matters of faith, I assume he is a Christian, considering his office.)

by dmambo

Taxpayers of any stripe get their panties all bunched up when their dollars pay to support views that disagree with their own. So righties are mad that the correct version, in their eyes, is being ignored. Lefties have fits when "religion" is taught as science. The Libertarians' view, of course, is that the answer is not to have tax dollars support schools at all. It's a personal choice to educate your children and then you can teach them anything you see fit.

So the answer to your question, unfortunately, seems to be "no, we cannot get along."

by jdclyde

lefties are against more than just "religion taught as science". ANY acknowledgement of ANY religion is a huge issue.

They will go running back and repeat the myth of "Separation of Church and State" and many will be stupid enough to believe that our constitution actually says that.

They will also cry foul if tax dollars are used by ANY religious organization for any reason, forgetting that MUCH of the tax dollars COMES from religious people?

Convenent to leave that part out?

by Member 25348569

But on everything else, probably.

Too early for a Happy Christmas but have one anyway. And a Happy Festival of Mithras.

by av .

I don't think that the majority of Republicans want to impose their religious views on everyone though. Most of them are moderate. The same goes for Democrats.

Whats happened since Bush is President (and admittedly religious), is that the extreme religious right wing of the Republican party feels empowered to show themselves and impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

That is not going to fly in America after Bush is no longer in office. As for Pat Robertson, he is just a kook and a greedy one, that has made lots of money from bilking religious zealots in the name of God. He's a rich man that is quite the opposite of the holy man he pretends to be.

by road-dog

There are radical and reactionary elements at the fringes of both ends of the spectrum.

The leftists try hard to take away our SUV's and fail to push their agenda more than inches at a time. The religious right wants to make biblical truth the law of the land and roe v wade has stood for decades.

Say that roe v wade is overturned, does that mean we are now a theocracy?

Say PETA is able to make ownership of mink mittens a federal offense. Does that mean we all died and went to California?

These are issues that mean a LOT to a relatively SMALL cross section of the population. For every Pat Robertson in the voting booth there are 10 Homer Simpsons.

Moderates to the near left and near right are a tremendous anchor drawing politics toward the center.

Remember, President Clinton made it rain leftists for 8 years. They got real brave and loud for a while. Are we all vegans freezing to death in the dark? Nope.

Let not your heart be troubled.

I'm a conservative and and a fairly new Christian, meaning I should be in a full blown evangelical tizzy. I won't be kicking in your front door and replacing your Newsweek magazine with the King James Version any time soon....

by Member 25348569

but they wouldn't put me through. When I explained my request I was told "We don't talk to communist servants of the Antichrist. Avaunt!"

by Member 25348569

I think you are making assumptions on the motives of the people who wish the book removed that are both superficial and invalid.

Oddly, the book itself proposes that no other opposing views exist. Inside, it deals with "The Word of God" and accepts no alternatives. The book is also clumsy and blatant - at least in the chapter that I read - when it was not being completely duplicitous.

I would be perfectly happy to see the book on sale with a warning wrapper "Reading books like this will rot your child's mind". The majority of people who want the book removed from sale in the gift shop are merely acting as one would to a roach infestation.

No irony at all.

by Member 25348569

"someone who tries in a forceful or enthusiastic way to persuade other people to believe in the Christian religion and the Bible"

Source, the freesearch.co.uk dictionary.

by maxwell edison

.
.....called the title of your discussion "Science versus Republican Ignorance". Science versus Evangelical Ignorance would be more appropriate to describe what you just said -- IF, in fact, what you just said is true.

As I pointed out in my messages, it's not "Republicans" that you have the problem with, at least considering what you claim, but rather a very small group of Christian Evangelicals, which the writer tried to sound like represented the bulk of the Republican Party, which they don't. And he tried to make it sound like they wielded hoards of power and influence, which they don't.

Moreover, this is not a "real" issue. It's a contrived issue -- designed and perpetrated ONLY in a lame attempt to make the Republican Party look bad. If a Democrat was in the White House, even an evangelical one like President Carter, the Evangelical Christians would still be doing the same things, books would still be sold at the Grand Canyon, but the difference would be that nobody would hear one thing about it. Absolutely nothing would be reported.

You gotta' love it when you prove something grossly flawed, and in some cases, down-right false, but people still want to believe in it and run with it anyway. Speaking of ignorance....

by Member 25348569

[b]Everything[/b] is on the Net; good, bad, absolute crap lies and stuff so stupid that it makes me cry. The fact that [b]this[/b] was on the net is truly meaningless.

The piece was the transcript of a BBC Radio 4 program. It was written by a BBC reporter for a certain type of UK radio listener. It was written to be [b]heard[/b]! Then it would have had the extra information that voice tone and emphasis give. For all any of us know, the entire piece - or none of it - could have been ironic.

This entire thread - including my contributions - is really a waste of space.

Aaaaaaaaaagh!

by dmambo

A quick glance at the book's web site and I see quotes that the canyon is an example of the awesome power of God. If one thinks of the Moon, the Sun, other planets, our galaxy, other galaxies, then it seems that a small gouge in the crust of a small planet isn't much more than an afterthought in relation to the rest of what's around.

I've been to the Grand Canyon a couple of times. It's a beautiful sight to behold.

by jellimonsta

I think we are all about to disappear up our own arseholes :p
The spawn of EL has created a vortex!!!!

by Member 25348569

Haven't seen you for a while.

I only posted on this one to have a little tilt at Maxwell. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Anyway, it's not a Kosher EL-spawn unless Gret posts!

I broke our tape library so I've the boring job of reloading and auditing 200 tapes. Plenty of time to post for the rest of the week.

:D

by tony hopkinson

and we have only media reports to go by. But the idea that the leader of the most powerful nation on earth invaded another country because god told him too is scary. That's the way it was reported in the UK, personally I suspect a bit of journalistic license might have been involved, the problem for me though is I found it credible.

I watched Al Gore on CNN with your governments stance on Kyoto,now that I foond hard to believe.

The recent row over same sex marriages was an interesting sidelight as well. This may be the left wing loony media demonising right wing christian free market right thinking americans but someone is providing them with a remarkable amount of ammunition.

by jdclyde

is being pushed by these people on the loony left, correcct? Take a look at how they ATTACK anyone that is a Christian and lead their life according to their beliefs. How tollarant and understanding are the loony left towards them? Not at all.

Doesn't that say something for the complete lack of credibility for them?

Or are we not suppose to notice how HATEFUL the "tollerant and understanding" left really is?
[b]
When you watch the reports, first ask if they are being CONSISTANT, and second if they are being biased. Do they hate, yell and screem about what they FEEL is wrong, or do they discuss what they THING is the problem AND how to fix it?

You will see them VERY differently if do this.

by tony hopkinson

Nothing could have made Al Gore's aregument against Kyoto look good to me. He said if you europeans want to waste your money not damaging the environment you can, we are going to keep making a profit. Clear and to the point. I'll give him that. As for same sex marriages, there are no ethical grounds for disallowing them, that's prejudice pure and simple. If the church doesn't want to sanction the joining fair enough, but for the state to do it unacceptable.

I don't rely on any media organistion for all my information, I never believe they are either impartial or honest in their bias. Bush talks to god I'll take with a pinch of salt. Bush over rules local states legislature to impose his moral out look on their democratically elected representatives, no not having it. Reported, good or bad, it's stupid and unethical. Waht he says or they say is immaterial, what happened, both points iof view reported accurately.

by maxwell edison

.
Or are you just being evasive?

The president said one thing, in response to a specific question, and in a specific context.

The misquote in your writer's article portrayed an entirely different image than what really happened.

If you can't see that, your own bias is blinding you.

You focused in on the two words, "Higher Father". Are you possibly suggesting that the president can't acknowledge a belief in a "Higher Father"? What an utterly silly thing to suggest. Name one president who didn't!

But the misleading words are "when deciding to go to war in Iraq he listened to the authority of", which is quite different than, "..to appeal to in terms of strength".

Believe what you want. You've shown that you're just another _____ who believes only what you want to believe.

by maxwell edison

.
Okay, but Neil, you must try and see this (book) from the perspective of the intended (reading) audience.

by Member 25348569

I know you didn't. That's why it was interesting to see you posting here. We didn't mention politics over on EL so I suppose the hook wasn't baited correctly.

As for the book, of course I don't really have any problem with it being on sale. It really is crap, though - at least the chapter I found on-line. "The Grand Canyon was caused by The Flood". Yes, That's why it's a unique specatacle. The Flood only happened in that part of North America.

As for the intended readership, I do worry about people with such a lack of simple logic. I react to Creationists like you react to taxes.

by gadgetgirl

and yes, you're right.

I think I'm going to like this new Archbishop. (In case you're wondering, York isn't too far from me, so the local press covered it extensively) I like the fact that they had an African band and African dancers in Yorkminster for the first time ever. And they even got the congregation dancing, too.

But what really got to me about the Christianity of the man was his excellent idea of snack packs! Instead of holding a luxury banquet for the 50 or so high level invitees, he got in touch with M & S who donated 3,500 snack packs for the whole of the congregation (including mini bottles of wine!!!) So instead of a few getting rich food, everyone got something, even the local journalists (which chuffed them to ribbons, btw)

It seems to have turned into a decent celebration: food, booze and dancing for 3,500+.

Brilliant start for him.

GG

by jdclyde

i can't hear you!

nanananananan

I can't hear you!

nanananannananan

I am quite happy with my own mental image of lapdances at home, than you very much!

by gadgetgirl

that you're up the pole about this?

(sorry, Fridayitis)

(ooops, weaver syndrome too, thought this was the Yuk......)

:D :p

GG

by montgomery gator

Then I think I am going to enjoy my church being an extra-territorial member of the Sebei Diocese of the Anglican Church of Uganda. :-)

We are part of that Diocese until there are enough congregations and bishops in the USA to form our own Anglican province independent of the Episcopal Church USA. The African Bishops have been very supportive of the new Anglican movement in the USA. Previously, we were under the Archbishop of Rwanda as a temporary measure.

My Church's website:
http://www.christchurchxp.com/main/

by Member 25348569

I read what Tony was saying is that you should be careful in imposing your moral standards on someone else in the form of laws.

In a multicultural society, where [b]their[/b] book of words passes down a different moral code from [b]your[/b] book of words, there are things that their God tells them to do that your God tells you not to do. Under those circumstances, if you apply majority rule then you force them to make a choice between immorality and legality.

If you attempt codify your laws based on ethics, rather than morality, then although you may still face the choice between legality and immorality, no-one can claim the primacy of their religious beliefs over another's.

Like Tony, I see a difference between ethics and morals.

Ethics are rules and reasons for behaviour put forward by someone who holds that they are based on and may be defended by reason.

Morals are rules and reasons for behaviour put forward by someone who simply insists that they be obeyed.

In this, Islamic Sharia Law and The Ten Commandments are both good examples of moral codes. I explains why people complaining of irregular sexual behaviour between consenting adults in private denounce it as 'immoral', never as 'unethical'.

It is the Muslim moral code - [b]not[/b] ethics - that sets down the behavioural norms and the punishments for immoral behaviour. The 'crime' of adultery and its punishment can only be justified by referencing it back to the Quran. Personally, I think a good chunk of the Islamic moral code stinks simply because it's unethical.

Didn't we do a whole thread on this question? I do remember posting this sort of argument to Ippirate.

I'll stop now before I really get going. See you later...

Neil :D

by jdclyde

So, we need rules.

Just who is to decide which rules are good and which rules are bad is in contention?

Where you draw the line of if something is moral or decent and what should or shouldn't be allowed, as well as where it should be allowed.

I don't advocate a lot of "God talk" on other people, but their are standards of decency and behavior that are a product of how and where I was raised.

I do not live in an area where it is acceptable OR LEGAL to marry your sister/brother. So should this be allowed because it is based on my moral standards?

As for posting to the pirare in discussions such as the EL, I had stopped reading that LONG before you stopped posting to it. Would only read the headings and say to myself, same argument, just a different day.

Note, I was also saying that such things were BAD things and should not be allowed in a civilized society.

have a grand weekend!

by Member 25348569

"such things were BAD things" is not the point in question. Just that you should try to codify laws because they [b]are[/b] bad rather than because someone else - God, King, Dictator - says they are bad. Not easy but in the end would be fairer and probably very little different from what you have now.

It wasn't EL, by the way. The question of morality without religion was it's own 800-post thread

Meil :

by jdclyde

another long winded discussion.

Hmm, that is where you tried to define "evil" without a religions setting.

It had some good points and some blah blah blah.

In the end, I was right! B-)

As for the mormons here taking more than one wife, the punishment for having more than one wife, is having more than one mother-in-law.

by jellimonsta

I have been kind of busy as of late, so I did not frequent TR that much. Did I miss much? :)
I did read quite a bit of your post regarding the UK and EU though. Some interesting perspectives in that one.

by tony hopkinson

imprecise thinking I was getting at.
Why do you make the assumption that some who doesn't share your morality has no morals?
I dare say our morality differs on several points, but I would only describe you as immoral or amoral, if you flouted your OWN moral code or did not have one at all. That's the difference between morality and ethics.

Laws indeed bind a community, in fact in real terms they are it's highest expression. That makes them neither ethical, nor moral. In fact there are many laws in a community that enforce tolerance of other members different standards of morality.

Your rather aggressive use of hyperbole, makes you sound like a soapbox orator. Try and think of some situations that you find morally offensive, but that are not unethical/illegal. That's of course if you can now tell the difference.

Polygamy for instance, leaving questions of legality aside, how does it harm society and therefore required to be legislated against. In what way is it unethical. It's morality is immaterial as that will be completely subjective.
No hyperbole though, don't start with the sex slaves, my life in a harem, arranged marriages bit. More than two freely consenting adults who wish the community to recognise and respect their relationship is what I'm talking about.

by jdclyde

What are you refering to? Please explain.
[i]
"Bush over rules local states legislature to impose his moral out look on their democratically elected representatives, no not having it."

by road-dog

if you want to see local governments being overridden at the federal level. Democracy is not overthrown when a higher democratically elected body superimposes authority over a lower one except where the Constitution prohibits it.

I guess that about 80 percent of the federal government's activities are extraconstitutional by a strict interpretation of the opinions and intents of the framers of that document.

If a judge is inclined to see the Constitution in a rigid way, he is branded as being "out of the mainstream" when he is nominated to the Supreme Court where he could really make a difference in that respect.

Personally, this is all really a non-issue until ferret legging is abolished globally...

http://tinyurl.com/aj8mq

by Member 25348569

though, personally, I reckon that ferret-legging should be an obligatory part of any (male) poitician's swearing-in! That way we will only get politicians with commitment.

Half an hour should be OK with the ferrets hyper on angel dust.

]:)

by road-dog

I can't recall what principle addresses this issue. Max will probably add it. An individual state's marriage policies affect ALL states because marriages are recognized by all other states.

Either all states must define what constitutes a valid marriage and then selectively acknowledge those unions from other states OR some higher authority must define what the entire nation views as being a valid union.

I think that eventually there will be some sort of civil union that will end up being the law of the land justified under the umbrella of equal protection.

If a couple from Arkansas gets divorced are they still brother ans sister?

by jdclyde

You are refering to the Constitutional ammendment proposed about the same sex unions.

There have been more state laws that do define Marriage as the union between ONE man and ONE woman than not.

People have been using the courts to try to change laws, and there are enough "activist judges" out there willing to do it.

People don't seem to realize that the courts have NO RIGHT to legislate ANYTHING. The only things they can do are follow existing laws OR PROVE a law is unconstitutional when would void the law.

It then goes back to the Congress to write a new law the doesn't not violate the Constitution OR to change the Constitution.

Bush KNEW this would not go through, as the average ammendment takes years to get radified. There were just a lot of people out their foolish enough to get all worked up about this, that have no understanding of how our government works and the processes it follows. (Another by-product of public education)

Many people in the States do not believe that they need to change their lives and they way they live them just because people come from other countries that refuse to change the way they live their lives.

As for Gay rights, it is coming. But just like race relations, it can only be legislated so much. Maybe Canada and Britain are more open about both of these issues, but not many other countries are.

As for State laws, I don't know of a single STATE that has a law recognising this union. There were CITIES that tried this.

Even in California, the most liberal state in the country, they voted AGAINST gay marriage.

by jdclyde

One state does not have to recognise marriages from another state. It is a state by state thing on what they accept.

The multiple wives thing is not recognised in Michigan for example. Only the first wife would be recognised, and the rest are in violation of state law.

The same is for the Vermont gay marriages. NO other state recognises them as valid, so to stay married, they need to stay in that state. This was intended for in-state residents only, and were talking about putting a ban on out of state people from getting married under this law.

EVERY gay marriage that was performed in California are void because there was no legal right for the Mayor to perform these marriages and should have been thrown in jail as the top city office for breaking the law. No one stopped him from performing what ended up being symobilic in nature only marriages because they were more interested in not being labled as a gay basher or a "homo-phobe", then they were of following the laws.

by absolutely

The freedom OF religion that permits the practice of Christianity is only possible because we are all free FROM any religion, including Satanism. If you were not free FROM Satanism, you would not have freedom OF Christianity.

Christianity is as evil to me as Satanism is to a Christian. It is equally immoral to tax me to pay for Christian indoctrination as to tax Christians to fund Black Masses. The latter is absurd to many people, yet the former happens routinely, and with the support of Christians. Why is that?