Religious people: please get Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don’t care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There’s something very mentally ill about that.
jficquette
August 30, 2008 @
11:35 AM
gandalf wrote:Religious [quote=gandalf]Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don’t care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There’s something very mentally ill about that.
[/quote]
I have much more respect for those who worship their God then I do for those who worship government as the Socialists, Commies do.
I wish the Socialist would quit trying to push their ridiculous views on others. After all, no where in human history has Socialism worked yet so many people keep trying to push it on others.
John
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
11:53 AM
So you’re suggesting that So you’re suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialist or communist? That’s pretty much bullshit.
That’s the most anti-American thing I’ve ever heard. We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state.
None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to keep your religion out of politics.
jficquette
August 30, 2008 @
11:58 AM
gandalf wrote:So you’re [quote=gandalf]So you’re suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialists or communists?
That’s the most anti-American thing I’ve ever heard.
We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state and you’re out there suggesting we’re communists.
None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to get the hell out of politics. That’s all.
[/quote]
Of course not. Separation of Church/State is in the constitution. Your saying that religious people are pushing their beliefs on others and I am saying I have more respect for those beliefs then I do for the belief that the government is the answer to all as the socialist and commies do.
John
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
12:09 PM
I don’t believe in I don’t believe in creationism. Allegorically, yes, I believe there is metaphysical ‘truth’ in the creation stories. But not literally. The earth is billions of years old. God didn’t bury dinosaur bones there as a ruse. And I won’t stand for a public school science teacher teaching my kids ‘voodoo science’ to justify their religious beliefs.
My Dad is a scientist. Many scientists are religious. Most of them see no contradiction between science and religion whatsoever. The current conflict between science and religion is a political phenomenon of the ‘Culture War’ and it’s used to divide, group and label voters.
You may agree with many of the positions of the culture warriors, abortion, gay marriage, family values, etc. That’s fine by me. But don’t preach politics from the pulpit. And keep your religion out of our government.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
12:23 PM
John, I appreciate the John, I appreciate the clarification. Sorry I misunderstood.
Actually, it seems I agree with you. In many countries, China for example, loyalty to belief systems are used as a means of political control. Whether it’s communist China, the Taliban in Afghanistan or these republican evangelical social conservatives, the larger socio-political patterns are exactly the same. It’s anathema to me.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 30, 2008 @
12:26 PM
gandalf: One of the things I gandalf: One of the things I notice in some of the posts is the mention that this nation was founded “Under God”.
If you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, or James Madison, what you find is that they were either Deists or firmly agnostic, with a strong distrust of “state” religions. Deism was primarily defined as a belief in God (or higher power) who was NOT meddling in the affairs of Man. These men were products of the Age of Reason and recognized the danger of autocratic, state sponsored religions and hence the call for separation of Church and State.
As of late, evangelical Christians have tried to foist the idea that the Founding Fathers were all deeply religious and propounded beliefs that intertwined God with politics. They did nothing of the sort and actually warned strongly against it.
The communism practiced by the Russians and Chinese is really no different from a state sponsored “religion” in my belief, and with all of the attendant woes.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
12:51 PM
Yeah. I’m there, man.
Had Yeah. I’m there, man.
Had enough of queer pastor Bob and the American Taliban groping us with their ultra-conservative, anti-dinosaur religious beliefs.
Right on about the founders. Actually, I think I’m a deist. Haven’t really considered it lately. Maybe I should.
Do Deists believe in the housing bubble?
luchabee
August 30, 2008 @
2:29 PM
Ah, yes, evolution, the adult Ah, yes, evolution, the adult fairy tale mostly for man-boys in their 30s and 40s (most of whom were rejected by girls in high school and college, for some reason) who need a nice story to make them feel safe and secure about their rejection of God.
Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations, these man-boys cling on to the purported teachings of similar man-boys in the academy who they have never studied or read, but was confirmed to them in a freshman class in college.
As a core foundation of their religion or because of it, they instantly revolt at the suggestion that there might be an intelligent source behind the creation of the world’s most complex and amazing machines. Women, for some reason, rarely take on this zealous defense of the faith (perhaps because they realize how amazing their bodies are, i.e. God inspired)?
Once they completed their class in school (and perhaps confirmed with an occasional update on a wikipedia article or an article in Yahoo’s science section), as evolutionary automatons, they violently lash out at anyone daring to question their religious beliefs with charges about the need to preserve the “separation of church and state” and accusations that the others are Bible thumping.
They, themselves, though are too intellectually stunted to read countervailing theories, and instead place their religous faith in the most dismal of all “sciences,” seizing on every example of “commonalities” between species as evidence of a COMMON ancestry . . . and not ever considering that these commonalities are evidence of a COMMON designer. (Some of the others call this designer “God.”)
They are content to live with this tale, happy with their question begging theory, and rarely go so far as to inquire into cosmology and how, impossibly (with no God), matter was created out of nothing, a materialistic impossibility.
Again, they never question that their house of cards must also have a logical and supra-physical foundation, namely a Holy God that created all we see, the air we breathe, the ground that we stand on–not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of dependent systems and structures that could not have independently formed at the same exact mili-second in a spontaneous “miracle” of evolution that keep us alive every day.
As they grow older, though, sometimes these man-boys do evolve themselves–even the most dogmatic of the species–likely confronting the realization of their pending mortality–and decide to throw off their fairy tales and stop begging the questions about the origin of the universe and their rebellion against God.
See below.
luchabee
August 30, 2008 @
2:29 PM
Though a rare event, one of Though a rare event, one of the most prominent man-boys recently saw the light:
—————————————————
In early December of 2004 the world renowned atheist author Dr. Antony Flew at age 81 astounded other atheists with his candid admission. Flew, who is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Britain’s Reading University has said that the scientific evidence available to us today is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a creator God. Flew, who was raised Methodist became an atheist at age 15, has been an influential champion of atheism for more than fifty years. He has argued repeatedly that there was not enough evidence to support the notion of a creator. But Flew has changed his mind and now believes in God based on the scientific evidence. Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the only plausible explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. Flew now describes himself as a deist. A deist is someone who believes in a God who is not actively involved in people’s lives. He has stated that he is not a Christian and does not believe in an afterlife. However, Flew has admitted that his God could be a person from the perspective of a being that has intelligence and purpose.
Teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, and in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses, and in books, articles, lectures and debates, Flew has presented the view that there is a lack of evidence for God. But during this time Flew underwent a gradual conversion from atheism to deism. In a letter he wrote in the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine, “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” Flew said he had “been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature”. Flew correctly specifies that the scientific establishment has simply failed to answer this question. By taking issue with the naturalistic chemical origin of life, Flew is attacking the intellectual foundation of modern atheistic materialism and purely naturalistic evolution. Flew conceded that his current thoughts on the origin of life are similar to those of the intelligent design community.
Flew stated that his “whole life has been guided by the principle of … Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” By doing this he has come to the conclusion from “biologists’ investigation of DNA … the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew went on to say that “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Yet somehow we are still unable to present this very evidence to students at all levels of the American academic system. A newspaper in Texas recently made the obvious connection between Flew’s admission and academics: “If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew’s reputation to recant much of his life’s work, why shouldn’t Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?” Flew has been an atheist for nearly 70 years and has now come to believe that naturalism is inadequate to explain the origin of the universe and life. He has come to this conclusion based solely on scientific evidence. This event should now make it untenable for evolutionists in the United States to continue to argue that Intelligent Design is just Biblical creationism under a different guise.
It is my opinion that the evidence for intelligent design of life and our universe literally leaps out at you from our current body of scientific knowledge. Over the next couple of decades intelligent design will roll in along side of evolution in school curriculums. It should be taught in schools as the science it is, and under the Supreme Court’s current separation of church and State rulings, it is perfectly legal. We are on the brink of a revolution here. It has only been since the middle part of the 19th century that naturalism has dominated science. Virtually all scientists before this era were creationists. In the last fifty years amazing research tools have been invented. The electron microscope, the particle supercollider, the Hubble space telescope, and many other advanced scientific instruments have revealed a creation infinitely more complex than the simplistic ideas born out of the ignorance of the late 19th and early 20th century. We now know cells are not just chemical soup as Darwin imagined, but are indeed nanotechnological systems like nothing we could have ever imagined. A hundred years from now, if the Lord tarries, the age of Darwinian evolution and the rule of naturalism in science may be viewed as the dark ages of science.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
2:33 PM
bored now.
Can we get back to bored now.
Can we get back to communism and how we won Vietnam?
Maybe add in something about a good Pho recipe?
Allan, you’re killing me here.
We need you.
Please.
Dan-Boy
(rejected by girls, Grrls!, and lady-boys)
Allan from Fallbrook
August 30, 2008 @
2:45 PM
Dan: Sorry, but that Michigan Dan: Sorry, but that Michigan – Utah game is a good one.
You know, as a Catholic, I believe in God as an animating force in the universe. Where it breaks down for me is with the “God made the world in seven days” tale. I believe that the bible is meant to be interpreted contextually and not literally and I believe that science and religion can co-exist (albeit uneasily). I also believe that neither science nor religion has ALL the answers.
I don’t subscribe to Intelligent Design, but I also don’t know enough about it to argue my reasons persuasively. I found luchabees posts and the article about Flew interesting, but I would want to read up on this before jumping into the fray.
Why are we man-boys again?
Pho! Dude, I love that stuff! There’s a couple of really good Pho joints off of El Cajon Blvd in San Diego.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
2:49 PM
That one over by the Beauty That one over by the Beauty Bar is one of my favorite places. Not too far from my house either.
Did you see that new Elaine Pagels book about the Gospel of Judas?
I am reading it right now and its pretty damn good.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
4:41 PM
LUCHABEE:
It’s okay for you LUCHABEE:
It’s okay for you to believe in God as an animating force in the universe or whatever else you would like to believe. Such beliefs do not need to be supported by science. There is metaphysical truth in creation myths that help us to understand the nature of human existence. Religion is a vehicle for understanding the nature of our existence and is not in conflict with science or an understanding of the physical universe gained through scientific observation.
Science, on the other hand, an objective understanding of our physical world, including its origins, and is based on research, observation — empirical, measurable and verifiable evidence. Evolution theory is well-supported by science. Every scientist understands that Evolution Theory is incomplete around the margins. Science and our understanding of the physical world is by definition incomplete. It is EVOLVING. What an interesting WORD? Many of us suspect there may yet be, as you suggest, some over-arching principles and forces common to both worlds.
SO THAT WE’RE CLEAR HERE:
“Intelligent Design” in the REAL-WORLD is not a trendy new religio-scientific unification theory. Intelligent Design is right-wing POLITICAL CODE for CREATIONISM, instituting a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible supported by CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS in our schools and public square. The overwhelming majority of ‘Intelligent Design’ voters have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to science. So take your condescending comments and shove them up your man-boy ass.
NO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.
NotCranky
August 30, 2008 @
4:53 PM
Intelligent design is an Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the “religion is power group” knows it. It is the power they won’t give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has.
I personally like religion for individuals and abhor it when it is mixed with politics. There seems to me, such and obvious disconnect between religion as a spirtiual tool and politics of religion that it cast a huge shadow of doubt on both, when they are mixed.
Arraya
August 30, 2008 @
5:02 PM
Creationism was manufactured Creationism was manufactured to prepare us to go back to Theocracy. The signs of that theocracy are springing up all around us in America and abroad. 14th Century minds armed with 21st Century nukes.
The Creationists exist for only one mission – secular power.
To Hell with a Creator who restricts inalienable rights to those required by a bunch of slave-raping plantation owners to give them overwhelming advantages over someone like me.
To Hell with a boss who claims he has overwhelming advantages over me because he is better at obeying his Creator than I am.
I am not responsible because millenia of our bosses have used our labor to build a maddening maze that controls every aspect of our life, our thoughts, and our faith. That is the Creation, our own work. The need to keep expanding that labyrinth has exhausted us of our resources, required that we be dumbed down so we don’t question the project, and weakened its own foundations to the point of crumbling. If we don’t keep expanding it, we reach a dead end.
Some pursuit of happiness.
Our cultures and values are competing evolutionary strategies, and all of them eventually will fail. If we refuse to use our evolved intellects to critically dissect those values then we will follow our indoctrinated path blindly to that failure. That’s how faith blinds us. The competition itself is insane because faith allows no alternative to absolute victory – fine when you’re just stealing one continent from its natives, but suicide when imposed on an entire planet of people of many faiths just as strong as ours. To stick our head out of the maze we must admit there is an outside; that we can tear down the walls of the maze; that we can build something else instead.
Arraya
August 30, 2008 @
5:07 PM
More importantly, the entire More importantly, the entire point of the Far Right’s machinations since 1968 is to convince Americans that the government can’t make things any better, which leaves everything in the hands of the corporate empire.
The corporate empire needed to burn an infinite amount of fossil fuels to enrich its barons quickly while throwing enough goodies at ordinary citizens so they wouldn’t notice their government was being bought out and their brains were being washed out. Thus government could not be used to stop ecological suicide.
Now we are living in the consequences of this plan. War for oil, energy crises, a quadrillion-dollar speculative bubble, a fantastic increase in economic inequality everywhere, a Christian crusade to subjugate the world at gunpoint, an America that tolerates torture and surveillance and government-partnered media.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
5:16 PM
Intelligent Design means alot Intelligent Design means alot of things, but it is primarily used to spin religious views in a way that advances religious fundamentalism in our schools and public square.
The nation and its traditions are damaged by this effort.
barnaby33
August 30, 2008 @
5:22 PM
Wow arraya, I didn’t Wow arraya, I didn’t understand what you said, but I could tell it was passionate.
I never realized my atheism was the reason girls ignored me in high school! Thank you dis-interested religious stranger!
Josh
larrylujack
August 30, 2008 @
5:09 PM
“Intelligent design is an “Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the “religion is power group” knows it. It is the power they won’t give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has.”
Actually this is a common misconception. ID requires a designer at the end of the day, i.e, it requires someone or something to do the design which in itself means there is or was a supreme entity. So, whatever you want to call it god, karma, buddah, or jerry lewis, ID is plainly the belief in a supreme entity or designer, i.e., a faith based belief which is commonly known as religion, whether you recognize it or not.
Significantly, ID has always failed to pass muster in court in terms of schools trying to teach ID as a part of the science curriculum, because judges, even those appointed by repubs see ID for what it is: RELIGION.
afx114
August 30, 2008 @
5:22 PM
Does anyone know the term for Does anyone know the term for a “religion” that believes that all other “religions” are just a manifestation of the laws of the universe – physics, chemistry, mathematics, electromagnetism, spacetime, etc? I’ve always wondered if there was a term to describe the belief in such things as a “religion,” though not in the traditional sense of the word.
eg: someone who says, “My God is the Fibonacci Sequence”
Arraya
August 30, 2008 @
5:46 PM
afx1114-If you want to go afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.
“All matter originates and exists by a virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscience an intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”
Max Planck-Founder of quantum physics.
afx114
August 30, 2008 @
6:07 PM
arraya wrote:afx1114-If you [quote=arraya]afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.[/quote]
I’m not looking to go spiritual with science. I want to know if there’s a term for the worship of numbers, and the numbers themselves, not some unknown creator of said numbers.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
7:09 PM
afx, let me know what you afx, let me know what you think of this…
Thanks gandalf, that was a great read (sorry, took me a while to get around to it). I am admittedly a novice when it comes this kind of stuff, but from what I’ve gathered from watching The Universe, reading Neil deGrase Tyson, and reading science fiction, it sounds like a fairly elegant theory. I guess we’ll see what happens when they fire up the LHC!
afx114
September 1, 2008 @
12:31 AM
P.S., the comments on that P.S., the comments on that link are INSANE.
CostaMesa
August 30, 2008 @
11:45 PM
Quote:Intelligent design is [quote]Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. [/quote]
Um, no. ID is another in a long list of attempts by America’s religious leaders to force their agenda upon the nation.
A compromise? Hardly. Trojan Horse is more like it.
I have no problem with religion or anyone’s beliefs. I have a problem with anyone trying to force any of their beliefs upon me. America was founded on the right of freedom to think whatever you want, so let me.
LuckyInOC
August 31, 2008 @
1:02 AM
Costamesa: “America was Costamesa: “America was founded on the right of freedom to think whatever you want, so let me.”
Yes, but when is learning about another culture, religion, theory, etc. has become forcing beliefs on any one. I didn’t know a school class has so much power. I didn’t know that you got a higher grade for Believing, than Listening. Darn, I could have gotten better grades. You must not watch much TV, read newspapers, or use the internet. These are much more influential than any class. How did you form your current beliefs? From your parents, teachers, classmates, or others? Did you research everything you know to the nth degree? Did you know everything at once at the age of 21, or did you know everything over a few years?
I have found as I learn from other points of views, my beliefs may change (even slightly) over time. Some points of views have even strengthened my own beliefs. If I ignore someone’s point of view without critical thought, I guess the world’s flat…
Has everyone taken their diversity training at work lately?
LuckyInOC
CardiffBaseball
August 31, 2008 @
1:31 AM
However you guys want to However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution.
Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).
I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez?
Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?
NotCranky
August 31, 2008 @
11:11 AM
“CardiffBaseball “[quote=CardiffBaseball]However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution. ”
I find the evangelical movement very frightening. Why are we supposed to be milk toasty on the topic?I think people need to get over expecting appeasement just they have God on their side.
“Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).”
Islam is not part of this debate because McCain and Obama are not going to Mecca for votes. They are swapping endorsements with Christian religious fanatics and their charlatan leadership. I would vote for a moderate and reasonable candidate from any of these religions. I like the way Kerry handled it.
“I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez? ”
Most Atheist I ever met are obnoxious. I also think making a major endeavor to get Atheism endorsed is stupid. I would expect an Atheist to come with more bothersome baggage than most believers. I’d like to see an Agnostic, Deist, free thinker or such but it isn’t going to happen.So the best I can do is try to get a sense for which of the candidates respects such individuals more.
“Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?”
I feel terrible about him speaking at the Rick Warren event. I am going to write him about how that effects me as a swing voter and as an American.
Thomas Paine said he could conceptualize most of the material for “The age of Reason” when he was ten.I don’t think that capacity is really so unusual. I would be glad to see an intro to world religions and philosophy taught in the 5th or 6th grade, with social studies perhaps. Creationism and other myths could justifiably be explained in that context IMO. I would want it to be. I feel that it is unjust that we don’t have curriculum like that for children who grow up under one brand of ignorance or another, or perhaps intellectual neglect, at home.
[/quote]
afx114
August 31, 2008 @
11:16 AM
I wouldn’t mind the teaching I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
2:11 AM
afx114 wrote:I wouldn’t mind [quote=afx114]I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.[/quote]
NOT in favor of creationism but wouldn’t mind a high school level course on “world religions.” where the major 5 or 6 (not including schisms of christianity) all get equal treatment.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 3, 2008 @
9:27 AM
Shadowfax: My high school Shadowfax: My high school (Catholic) had a course called “Comparative Religions” that was a requirement my Junior and Senior years. It was helmed by a Jesuit priest who held a law degree from Yale and was an expert in Canon Law.
He would invite rabbis, pastors, imams, etc from various denominations and religions to come and discuss (not debate) their religions. The only two organizations that turned the invitation down were the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons.
It was fascinating stuff, especially the connection between Judaism and Christianity and Islam and Judaism/Christianity (the “Abrahamic Religions”).
It was very interesting and enlightening, to say the least. Even back then (early 1980s) you could sense that Islam was different (the imam that attended was from a moderate sect in Berkeley of all places). He was very clear in his assertion that Islam demanded pride of place and that, while it could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism, it demanded to be first among equals. All of this was said without animosity, but was a home truth to him and not subject to negotiation.
SDEngineer
September 3, 2008 @
9:39 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
It was very interesting and enlightening, to say the least. Even back then (early 1980s) you could sense that Islam was different (the imam that attended was from a moderate sect in Berkeley of all places). He was very clear in his assertion that Islam demanded pride of place and that, while it could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism, it demanded to be first among equals. All of this was said without animosity, but was a home truth to him and not subject to negotiation.[/quote]
I’ve heard this exact assertion by a great many Christian pastors/ministers/whatevers over the years. Indeed, it seems built in to most Christians (especially of the more fundamentalist sects – Baptists, Pentecostals, etc) to assume this pride of place without even really thinking about it.
Judaism not so much, but I think that Jews abroad have had about 2000 years of being the underdog religion and getting used to it.
I think it’s the Mosaic tradition (especially in both Christianity and Islam) of being exclusive (that is, there is no road to God except through belief and service in that one particular religion) that leads to this insistence.
jpinpb
September 3, 2008 @
9:51 AM
I’ve been trying to avoid the I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later. Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 3, 2008 @
10:02 AM
jpinpb: I would take issue jpinpb: I would take issue with the assertion that our Founding Fathers were religious. Most were Deists and products of the Age of Reason.
Most, if not all, also had a very strong aversion to state religions, especially after the experiences of England, France and Germany with same.
I completely agree as to both separation of Church and State and freedom of religion, but also that “freedom OF religion” is not the same as “freedom FROM religion”.
Lastly, I would state that there is a huge difference between religion/religiosity and faith/spirituality. You don’t need a “religion” to find God.
jpinpb
September 3, 2008 @
10:34 AM
Allan – thank you for the Allan – thank you for the clarification. I should have said “some” of our forefathers were religious. And I also agree that you don’t have to be religious to believe in God and be spiritual.
Yes, there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, but separation of church and state implies to me the government will not involve church in political matters.
SDEngineer, I thought the Puritans came here b/c their beliefs were not allowed in the UK, hence thereafter this became a country open to all religions. In any case, thanks for making it clear.
SDEngineer
September 3, 2008 @
12:00 PM
jpinpb wrote:SDEngineer, I [quote=jpinpb]SDEngineer, I thought the Puritans came here b/c their beliefs were not allowed in the UK, hence thereafter this became a country open to all religions. In any case, thanks for making it clear.[/quote]
You are correct that they came here from the UK because the established Church was the Anglican Church which barely tolerated Catholicism (allowed it to be worshipped underground), and didn’t tolerate at all any other religion, but they simply wanted a different establishment Church of their own.
It was the Enlightenment movement of the 1700’s – a core tenet of which was the belief of reason over dogma (and was the reason the late 1700’s were called “The Age of Reason”) – which advocated for religious tolerance which became our legacy (indeed, the Constitution as written was considered to be largely the legacy of the Enlightenment movement, and most of the major Founding Fathers considered that to be their core philosophy – Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Paine were all very much a part of the Enlightenment).
This is part of the reason why the idea that these Founders were fundamentalists is so ludicrous to anyone who has actually studied that period of history – while Fundamentalists have always been around, the late 1700s was one of the time periods where they had the least political influence, and while there were some involved in the drafting of the Constitution, the majority were Enlightement thinkers (and many of the most prominent weren’t even Christians at all, but Deists).
for a concise rundown of the Enlightenment and it’s effects on both our own government, and society in general. It was a major turning point in the human condition, and without it, it’s unlikely that our government would have ever been constituted in it’s current form.
gandalf
September 3, 2008 @
12:52 PM
Viewed in the light, it’s Viewed in the light, it’s amazing how subversive and anti-American these right-wing Christian types are, attempting to rewrite history and implement theocratic principles in America.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
10:12 AM
jpinpb wrote:I’ve been trying [quote=jpinpb]I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later. Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda. [/quote]
Amen. haha! No, but seriously, I’ll repeat what others have said–believe whatever you want, catholic, fundamentalist, muslim, judaism, buddhist, jainist, wicca, druid, satanist, rastafari (sp?), whatever, just don’t push it like crack on the rest of us or have the arrogance to tell me I am wrong because I don’t think like you do. Leave me to do what I want to do (as long as I am not hurting anyone (human or animal) or causing a nuisance) and believe and practice what you want.
SDEngineer
September 3, 2008 @
10:17 AM
jpinpb wrote:I’ve been trying [quote=jpinpb]I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later. Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda. [/quote]
Actually, the original pilgrims (the Puritans) would have been dead-set against religious freedom. They came here in essence to set up their own little theocracy that wouldn’t fly in the UK (which at the time also didn’t allow freedom of religion). There was no freedom of religion in a Puritan society.
Fortunately for us, a great many merchant settlements were set up (the majority of settlements from NY on down the coast were originally set up as trade posts), as well as more moderate religions like the Quakers of Pennsylvania. They comprised the majority by the time the US was formed.
afx114
September 3, 2008 @
10:00 AM
My favorite course in college My favorite course in college was a “History of Religion” class. It wasn’t about beliefs except for when those beliefs drove history through massive social change. The class focused more on how the religions formed and evolved through the ages, and more importantly, why they formed and evolved. It was more of a philosophy class than it was a religion class.
Whether or not you are religious or spiritual, there is no debating that religion has shaped world history. Whether it was for the better or worse is the true debate.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
10:20 AM
afx114 wrote:My favorite [quote=afx114]My favorite course in college was a “History of Religion” class. It wasn’t about beliefs except for when those beliefs drove history through massive social change. The class focused more on how the religions formed and evolved through the ages, and more importantly, why they formed and evolved. It was more of a philosophy class than it was a religion class.
Whether or not you are religious or spiritual, there is no debating that religion has shaped world history. Whether it was for the better or worse is the true debate.[/quote]
One last comment then I need to get some work done: I picked up Joseph Campbell’s “Power of Myth” some years ago and it covered what could be considered primitive religions in that these myths from all over the world did what religions–and to some extent science–try to do today: explain the mysteries of the world and universe. It was amazing to me how primitive peoples with very limited exposure to anyhting other than their immediate environment had many of the same creation myths. Polynesian-based mythologies had an mother myth centered on the sea (unsurprising) but the story was markedly similar to a land-locked african tribe’s creation myth, where the earth was formed from the sands of the desert, for example. A lot of allegorical relationships and origins for many of the christian parables–i love it when the bible thumpers think that the bible was the origin of these stories. They’ve been around for millenia before BC. And don’t even get me started on the fact that a lot gets lost in translation from ancient Aramaic to hebrew to latin to “King James.”
OK rant over.
seattle-relo
September 3, 2008 @
9:42 AM
Shadowfax wrote:afx114 [quote=Shadowfax][quote=afx114]I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.[/quote]
NOT in favor of creationism but wouldn’t mind a high school level course on “world religions.” where the major 5 or 6 (not including schisms of christianity) all get equal treatment.[/quote]
I would be very happy to see a class that explores the history and various aspects of the different world religions at the highschool level. I took one in undergrad (I believe it was in through anthropology dept)and just loved it – one of my favorite classes. I believe that it in order to relate to other people it is important to have an objective understanding of their culture, which includes their religion.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
2:06 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:However [quote=CardiffBaseball]However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution.
Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).
I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez?
Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, the poll referred to candidates leaning toward creationism. This is “code” for people who are fervent advocates of a particular christian religious view who are rabidly trying to force this view on others. I think the appeal of Ron Paul for instance–despite a couple anomalies (right to choose)–is that he’s a reasonable guy with his own beliefs but he’ll use reason to govern and not any wacko religious beliefs. Same with Obama–he may have listened to Wright’s speeches, but this doesn’t mean he is out to “get whitey.” In fact, I think he will operate very well in the ivory tower of washington and the white house…
LuckyInOC
August 31, 2008 @
1:37 AM
Separation of Church & State Separation of Church & State not in Constitution…
Religion is only referenced in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Of course, everyone knows the first 10 Amendments are ‘Rights to the people against Goverment’, not prohibitions of the people.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This only states the Government cannot establish Government based religion such that of England and the Church of England at the time. Nor can the Government prohibit how you chose to believe. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
It does not state: freedom FROM religion as most want ‘believe’.
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.” – James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 10 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
The founding fathers planned for religious influence in politics… it’s a called a Republic, not a Democracy. If you believe in Democracy everyone should be frightened, mob rule.
gandalf: “We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state and you’re out there suggesting we’re communists.”
Actually, no… we only have 206 years of tradition:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” – Thomas Jefferson
in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.
Although, Jefferson was great man and president at the time, this was his personal belief, not an official declaration of the Government. Its unheard of that the citizens of the United Stated do not agree with its president’s views (Bush)… Its kind of ironic that in 1800 Jefferson and Arron Burr was tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives chose the lesser of two evils. Sounds too familiar… nothing seems to change.
However, I can find one man that seams to disagree with Thomas Jefferson:
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington
Who’s right… both are right… It’s called diversity…
Maybe we only have 130 years of tradition:
It wasn’t until 1878 that the term, “separation of church and state” was used by the Supreme Court. The next use by the Court was in 1947 thru the 1970s. Not much tradition here…
The use of ‘Separation of Church and State’ has mostly been referenced only in the last 60 yrs.
Could it be there was no prayer, references to God, etc in schools prior to 1947?
Was everyone before 1947 atheists? agnostics?
Why the sudden change of ‘heart’?
If everyone is so upset at religion in Gov’t, I vote we should rescind Thanksgiving and December 25th as a Government holiday and make everyone work those days… The Government is supporting a religious belief in God…
Lucky In OC
urbanrealtor
August 31, 2008 @
2:07 AM
BTW.
Watching the Bob BTW.
Watching the Bob Barr/Alan Keyes section of Borat while posting is just the funniest thing ever.
ucodegen
September 1, 2008 @
12:08 AM
This only states the This only states the Government cannot establish Government based religion such that of England and the Church of England at the time. Nor can the Government prohibit how you chose to believe. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
It does not state: freedom FROM religion as most want ‘believe’.
In a way it does. When your exercising of your right to religion impinges on my right to exercise my religion.. what ever that may be.
The use of ‘Separation of Church and State’ has mostly been referenced only in the last 60 yrs.
Could it be there was no prayer, references to God, etc in schools prior to 1947?
Was everyone before 1947 atheists? agnostics?
Why the sudden change of ‘heart’?
1947 saw the end of a war with two enemies that would virtually go to any limit (Germany and Japan) to win. I think people were ‘feeling’ their religion more.
“Under God” was added to the pledge in 1954 in response to campaign by the Knights of Columbus. This is why there is a strange hiccup in the rhythm of the Pledge. Try saying it without the “Under God”.
“E pluibus Unum” on our money was replaced by “In God We Trust” in 1956 by the 84th Congress.. partially in response to the McCarthy communist witch hunt and being in the height of the cold war — of that time. The reason why people are bringing up separation of church and state is to remind those who want to continue along the path of writing ‘God’ into everything, that the original founders did not, and intentionally did not, include reference to God in secular government.
Also added during 50’s:
“So Help me God” added to oaths of office.
SDEngineer
September 2, 2008 @
11:30 AM
LuckyInOC wrote:
“It is [quote=LuckyInOC]
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington
…
Lucky In OC
[/quote]
I would be very cautious about using these quotes. Both are from David Barton, and both apparently appeared out of whole cloth for his book. There is no contemporous record of George Washington having said either.
Even David Barton’s website now admits that these quotations are “questionable”.
See here for what one Christian group that supports Church/State seperation has to say about Barton:
Contemporous sources from George Washington’s time indicate that he was VERY reticent to talk about religion at all. He never went on the record about his beliefs in religion at all, even in his private letters. Several sources among his friends indicate he may have been a Deist (which would hardly be surprising considering his circle of friends).
CostaMesa
August 31, 2008 @
12:09 PM
LuckyInOC wrote:Yes, but when [quote=”LuckyInOC”]Yes, but when is learning about another culture, religion, theory, etc. has become forcing beliefs on any one.[/quote]
Sounds like your concen is whether ID can be taught as a religious theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with that and don’t know very many people who do. In fact, ID *IS* taught in public schools as such – take a comparative religions class and it’s pretty likely to be in there.
Where I have a problem is when, as in the case of the Kansas Public School System, science gets pushed aside to promote a religious agenda. I see many examples in this thread of the opposite concern. The discussion centers on how to keep them separate and where to find a balance.
Science is science, religion is religion. They can coexist and they’re not the same thing. Efforts to overwrite one with the other (I also understand how the believers would feel as though science is trying to overwrite their beliefs…) are just plain wrong.
And, if I seem a bit aggressive on this topic – it’s because I lived in the South (NC) for fifteen years. Virtually everyday an Evangelical type felt compelled to tell me how I was going to hell because I didn’t openly agree with whatever someone else had told them to believe. Ignorant intolerance really blows, regardless of the source. I couldn’t wait to escape that place and can understand why believers are frustrated with efforts to push back on the ID movement.
And, after all that, I still have to admit that I’m basically agnostic because of nothing more than the Teleological argument. It’s impossible to deny outright – there’s no contrary evidence. However, as a person who’s made their way through life by learning and practicing the natural sciences, it seems clear that we don’t have a speck of evidence proving ID either. It’s just an interesting hypothesis. That’s all.
And on the original topic of the thread – I wouldn’t have a problem with someone who believed whatever they liked. I’d have a problem who says that they will take actions to exercise their particular flavor of religious beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted the poll at first glance…but I have to admit to be a bit biased towards rejecting even the discussion of the topic. History of the topic points out that if ID comes up at all, this person seems to consider ‘belief as science’ to be on the table. That shows a lack of adequate judgement IMO and is something I’d avoid.
CostaMesa
August 31, 2008 @
12:17 PM
One other thing I’m seeing in One other thing I’m seeing in this thread and others…a tendency for the vociferous types to decry what they believe to be victimization at the hands of those who do not agree with them.
I just don’t get how someone is victimized simply because they can’t have everything the way that someone else said it should be.
What’s up with that?
A free society should allow anyone to believe whatever they want – but that doesn’t ensure the manifestation of all said beliefs.
Few would disagree that it would be ridiculous if I said that I believe that Brad Pitt is my love-slave and I am being victimized by ‘the system’ because this hasn’t yet come to pass?
How is that any different from saying that ID is a legitimate scientific fact and ‘the system’ is standing in the way of having it be taught at taxpayer expense?
gandalf
August 31, 2008 @
1:01 PM
Again, no problem with Again, no problem with discussions of religion and science, origins of life. No problem with religion being covered as such in school under the topic of religion, preferrably under a pluralistic approach.
But I am no-way, no-how okay with right-wing fundamentalists pushing Creationism, Christian dogma and literal interpretations of the Christian bible on my kids in a public school SCIENCE class.
That’s not an attack on anyone’s faith. That’s an attack on science. It’s an attack on seperation of church and state. It’s an attack on religious freedom. It’s a bigoted attack on pluralism.
If you support this, you’re really of the mind that America should be some kind of Christian theocracy. Your brothers and sisters live in Afghanistan and they’re called the Taliban.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
5:07 PM
stansd, yeah I do lean stansd, yeah I do lean libertarian. Most of us in GenX do. This religion in schools thing is just crap. We’re not turning our schools into madrassas.
Tell me, if the religious right gets past creationism in school, how long before they start in with school prayer? This isn’t some sideshow. This is today’s GOP, and Kansas is actually a state.
Look, we live in a pluralistic society. You have to accomodate people of different belief systems. Frankly, I don’t see secular schools as being in conflict with religion. I don’t see religion as being in conflict with science.
The ID movement is absolutely about instituting religion in our government and schools. The GOP of the 21st century wants to take America in the direction of a theocracy. I completely disagree.
The Middle East is full of fundamentalist theocracies. From where I sit, the Taliban suck ass and Afghanistan is a shitty country. I don’t think we should go there with America.
meadandale
August 31, 2008 @
11:02 AM
gandalf wrote:
Tell me, if [quote=gandalf]
Tell me, if the religious right gets past creationism in school, how long before they start in with school prayer? This isn’t some sideshow. This is today’s GOP, and Kansas is actually a state.
[/quote]
You’re apparently ignorant to the fact that the secular progressives have been adding the teaching of Islam (with prayer rugs and everything) into Klownifornia schools.
Apparently religion in schools is ok if it’s the religion of the lunatics that are trying to kill us but not if it’s Christianity? Pathetic….
I believe you are referring I believe you are referring to the California 7th grade social studies text: Across the Centuries.
I taught that book. Yes, it included chapters on Islam. It also included chapters on the rise of Christianity through the Middle Ages. We spent weeks on this. So yes, we studied Christianity.
To claim the emphasis was on Islam is disingenuous, at best.
I believe the goal was not to push any single belief system on the kids, but rather to show how cultures evolved and the role religion and/or philosophical beliefs played in their expansion within a particular time frame. (fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.)
I don’t doubt that some teachers took the lessons too far, but that really is an administrative problem – as opposed to a flaw in the curriculum itself.
There was supplementary curriculum entitled “History Alive” which used a hands on approach to teaching these concepts. I recall the Islam unit contained an activity where the students were shown and invited to do a prayer (no, they were not forced to praise Allah…) The point was actually to show that there was a physical component to the act of prayer. But mostly, we just discussed the 5 pillars and how the religion spread and eventually divided into the two sects. The kids had a LOT of questions. We did our best to find unbiased answers to them.
We also reenacted the life of a monk from the Byzantine Empire by sitting silently and copying text into calligraphy. We played Gregorian chants in the background. We drew pictures of cathedrals and discussed how and why the church was the center of daily life.
We traded salt for gold during our Africa unit. The kids figured out how/why salt and other spices might have been so valuable to various cultures. They figured out how trade routes emerged.
We did so many simulations and reenactments, I can’t even remember them all. I do recall reading the reflection journals and term papers the kids wrote after each unit of study. History was not just a list of names and dates they had to remember, but a composite of civilizations that were interesting and real to them. I left the names and dates to their 9th grade teachers… 😉
I’ll be the first to admit that we didn’t delve very deep into any topic, but i can say with confidence that the curriculum is compelling and not at all controversial, if taught as intended, even with the reenactments.
Man, if a superficial unit on Islam upset you, you should have seen how the 8th grade was learning about slavery! Ever been on a slave ship?
drunkle
September 3, 2008 @
4:31 PM
thanks to the wonderfully thanks to the wonderfully liberal and sympathetic nature of america, a crackpot woman can be selected for vp candidate. regardless of hot or not. now it’s up to the people to decide if they want said crackpot woman.
unfortunately, many voting americans subscribe to crackpot theories and will elect officials on the basis of common beliefs alone. but that particular group of crackpots are traditionally against women in command and leadership roles, so it might be a wash. a terrible moral quandry, even; a vote for the kindred crackpot is also a vote for man hating lesbians. uppity women who don’t know their place. she probably doesn’t know a crock pot from a dutch oven. or a griddle from a skillet. grits from cream of wheat. it’s right that she believes in the god creator, but it ain’t right that she neglects her god given duty as a wife. she should be at home doing her duties with her husband as number one priority and not galavanting about with the societies peoples and wantin to pursuading peoples to do what fors and working in offices with other wimmins husbins…
god created wimmin from adam to serve him. not be politicking, that’s the devil’s work.
jficquette
September 3, 2008 @
5:19 PM
Drunkle,
And she better look Drunkle,
And she better look damn too while she does all that wimin work.
John
robson
August 30, 2008 @
11:06 PM
luchabee wrote:Blinded by [quote=luchabee]Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations
[/quote]
Darwin devoted decades to categorizing thousands of observations in order to provide sense and order to them, ultimately culminating in profound evidence for the theory. He was in fact, one of the most devoted empiricists that ever lived. Darwin began his original trip relatively ignorant of evolution and was recommended by his own mentor to treat the theory with an eye of precaution. Under these pretenses he was drawn to the idea as the only explanation of countless observations from around the world.
If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
11:49 PM
robson wrote:
If you had ever [quote=robson]
If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.[/quote]
I think you are criticizing too obvious and obstinate an opponent.
Also, turning a blog into a book club is a bad idea.
You have good points but you would be better served to summarize them as opposed to reference reading material that is beyond the skill level of others.
Cynical perhaps but I am a Realtor. I am used to being cynical about my peers.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
12:10 AM
Dan: Easy, bubba. I think Dan: Easy, bubba. I think reading Darwin is well within the capabilities of any of those posting on this thread. I have to say that I have seen some really thoughtful and well phrased responses and, given the volatile nature of the topic, respectful as well.
The guy that ran the AP Physics team at my high school was also an adjunct professor of physics at Stanford. He was really into quantum physics and we’d discuss temporal relastics and quanum mechanics after study group. He referred to quantum physics as “heresy” because the physics community at the time (early 1980s) treated it as such. Even within the scientific community there can be a hidebound resistance to new ideas or new ways of thinking about things. The one thing I remember from his discussions is that the “conventional” physics community feared quantum physics because they couldn’t understand it and it threatened to overturn much of what they BELIEVED.
Geeky as hell, I still read physics books for enjoyment and it is hard not to believe in God when you do. Spiritually (not religion) and science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive concepts.
robson
August 31, 2008 @
12:25 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Spiritually (not religion) and science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive concepts.[/quote]
Excellent distinction. Any religion can be mutually exclusive of science or not if it so mandates.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
12:38 AM
robson: Except I meant to say robson: Except I meant to say “spirituality” and not “spiritually”.
Being Catholic (and Jesuit Catholic at that), I try to avoid religiosity wherever I find it, and one of the things most worrisome to me about evangelical Christianity is the willingness of its adherents to brusquely shoulder aside any doctrine, belief or system that doesn’t square with their worldview. While a comparison to fundamental Islam might be somewhat overdone, the same concern exists with both: “You’re either with us, or against us”.
This mentality is completely inimical to both the concept of free speech and free thinking, and also to the idea that science and religion can co-exist and even be mutually supportive.
urbanrealtor
August 31, 2008 @
1:27 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]robson: Except I meant to say “spirituality” and not “spiritually”.
Being Catholic (and Jesuit Catholic at that), I try to avoid religiosity wherever I find it, and one of the things most worrisome to me about evangelical Christianity is the willingness of its adherents to brusquely shoulder aside any doctrine, belief or system that doesn’t square with their worldview. While a comparison to fundamental Islam might be somewhat overdone, the same concern exists with both: “You’re either with us, or against us”.
This mentality is completely inimical to both the concept of free speech and free thinking, and also to the idea that science and religion can co-exist and even be mutually supportive.[/quote]
hear hear
NotCranky
August 31, 2008 @
12:39 AM
I feel so misunderstood on I feel so misunderstood on the compromise bit. It was sarcastic. The irony of evolution in the dogma related to the word of “God” has not escaped me. Anyway, Gandalf and others are doing a great job.
Gandalf, I woudl task the Politician to deal with potential religious fanatics.. Instead they court them, pander to them and appease and endorse them, as far as electability issues will allow for. The Republican party does this more so of course, but the democrats respond to the vote potential, not the problem of separation of church and state or the moral hazard of letting religion rise in power. They don’t want to offend the evangelicals and have made calculated efforts to win more of them over. I am sure you are aware of all this anyway. Just basically agreeing with you except that I think we can’t expect the religious tyes to back off.
If it comes to a school near me I am taking out a can of WA.
Just teaching the nonsense wouldn’t bother me. I tell my kids when there are alternate views to what they bring home from school and that there are alternate views to what they take out of the house.The problem with the religious fanatics is the power and control issues behind it all. Or is it that they are still trying to save us all from “hell”? No I don’t buy that. These people want to own more souls not free them.
I am inspired by the good judgement reflected in this poll and I hope like hell to see a big backlash against any party or politician who tries to ride faith into office and especially for those who try to build a base of this type of voter, as a tool for ascension to power.
robson
August 31, 2008 @
12:19 AM
urbanrealtor-
Point urbanrealtor-
Point definitely taken. Maybe you’ll be less cynical in a few years. It is just hard to read the equivalent of a blind person telling me that Yosemite is ugly.
tc
August 30, 2008 @
12:04 PM
Religious freedom is what Religious freedom is what this country was founded on. When we start to blur that line we start to lose focus on this beautiful idea. When schools start teaching creationism we have no leg to stand on. As a country we cannot say we stand for freedom yet impose the beliefs of others on our children. How can that be any different from communism? We as a free people should be allowed to make up our own minds and not be forced to accept the ideals of others, even if they are the majority. People can be good without believing in any one religion. I myself believe fully in this idea of freedom. I wish more people would. But instead of freedom they are blinded by their beliefs. They must feel like they are smarter, know something others don’t, or are superior in their knowledge. And it seems to me that those are the same type of people that drove the pilgrims to jump on a ship and set sail for some unknown land. Not knowing if they would survive. Wanting true freedom.
stansd
August 30, 2008 @
3:31 PM
Gandalf,
Unless you are a Gandalf,
Unless you are a strict libertarian, is not the whole purpose of a career in politics to impose your beliefs on others?
I’m a bible believer, who would probably term my view on the origin of the world as theistic evolution. That said, I’m continually intrigued by the venom spewed by folks like yourself towards people of faith?
Are religious believers often guilty of attempting to legislate their beliefs onto others? Absolutely? Has faith of many stripes been used as an excuse for some of the most heinous crimes in human history? Without question. Do I condone this? Absolutely not? Why is it, though that the level of passion (hatred) exhibited by folks like yourself manifests itself much more frequently when religious motives are behind this legislative imposition of beliefs? Why is that relevant?
If it’s using the strong arm of the state to coerce others into doing things that you hate, level against that, but leave religion out of it. Doing otherwise is religious discrimination at best, outright hatred at worst.
There’s enough of that out there as it is…there’s no need for true believers of liberty to pile on.
Stan
jficquette
August 30, 2008 @
3:52 PM
Stan,
Good post. Plus, it was Stan,
Good post. Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.
Who creates more value in our society? Believers or Atheists? Believers in God do in my opinion because good works is part of the belief system.
John
afx114
August 30, 2008 @
4:11 PM
jficquette wrote:Plus, it was [quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.
MisterMark123
August 30, 2008 @
4:21 PM
Yep. And those same Yep. And those same believers will be celebrating when a catastrophic earthquake hits California. Just watch.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
4:29 PM
afx114 wrote:jficquette [quote=afx114][quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.[/quote]
afx is framing it a bit harsh.
However, he has a point.
John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.
I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.
The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.
I don’t recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don’t know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation.
jficquette
August 30, 2008 @
9:52 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:afx114 [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114][quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.[/quote]
afx is framing it a bit harsh.
However, he has a point.
John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.
I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.
The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.
I don’t recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don’t know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation. [/quote]
Christians who really try to include Christ’s teachings of love do create value in our society. Its also not part of Christianity to take joy in any one’s suffering. True believers don’t think God punishes anyone. Just the weirdo’s and there are a lot of weirdo’s (g).
So what bugs me is that Christians take so much grief from the MSM without any recognition of the value our Church’s create in the community.
John
stansd
August 30, 2008 @
3:31 PM
Duplicate Duplicate
meadandale
August 30, 2008 @
5:30 PM
I find it funny that none of I find it funny that none of the evolutionists can explain what was before the big bang, nor do they try. There was nothing, then BOOM. Yeah, seems to be some metaphysical questions there that you are just hand waving away.
I’ll concede that evolutionary theory explains alot about the fossil record and our knowledge of flora and fauna and I find the creation myth to be an allegory, not an actual depiction of the history of the universe. So a week was actually 14 billion years….
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
6:07 PM
>> I find it funny that none >> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang
manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I’m going in the right direction.
Scientists often explore new ground or formulate hypothises based on instinct. Metaphysics does a better job of explaining our experience as humans than empirical deduction, or even induction.
Science and Religion are not incompatible. They rest alongside each other in relative harmony, if we would only allow it. The one plumbs the unexplainable depths of human consciousness, intuition and experience; the other attempts to describe with predictable accuracy the tangible, external, observable phenomena of the physical world.
I used a semicolon in that last paragraph. 😉
robson
August 30, 2008 @
10:49 PM
gandalf wrote:>> I find it [quote=gandalf]>> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang
manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I’m going in the right direction. [/quote]
A very large number of astrophysicists pursue their field in search of answering the question of why it is any of this exists. The big bang represents a singularity at which point all known physics breaks down (same as within a black hole) and it is completely valid to say we don’t know what happened before it. However, astrophysicists do not simply brush this off, in fact, the ability to explain this is the goal of many. Gandalf-there are theories along these lines such as that the universe will end in a big crunch and then re-expand in a new big bang. Or even that each black hole is the beginning of a new universe.
Quantum physics presents many troubling aspects from a strictly rational viewpoint. Many scientists believe in God and search the universe to better understand how He works or how he put into motion that which exists today.
All that said, evolution is a theory that works within the context of all of this uncertainty. However in this uncertain universe the day to day and even eon to eon processes on Earth are known to very high certainty. If you “believe” the sun will rise tomorrow than it is advisable to believe the world is more than a few thousand years old.
Creationism has many variants. I am very open to the idea that God “created” a universe governed by a set of laws in which we have evolved.
Strict creationism states that no species of life has ever gone extinct, as God would not permit this in His design. I am not open to this idea because I believe in fossils and I do not believe dinosaurs exist today.
Creationism itself has evolved quite a bit over the years.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
11:23 PM
@ Robson:
As someone raised @ Robson:
As someone raised in a deeply catholic household (I am agnostic) I have never understood this emphasis on projecting religion onto science. I have never thought them mutually exclusive or antithetical.
I just don’t understand why denying a basic scientific tenet makes one a better Christian.
Is it not reasonable to locate divine creation at the point of origin for our natural world (without saying that origin is 6000 years ago)?
Further, does not the concept of faith make the need for evidence in the natural world irrelevant?
Dan
robson
August 31, 2008 @
12:10 AM
Dan-What makes one a better Dan-What makes one a better Christian has evolved over the years as the church has denounced certain ideas only to repeal those earlier decisions as further evidence was uncovered. It was once heresy to believe the world is not flat.
The question of faith is interesting considering the historical context that Popes have been persuaded against their own “faith” (or previous judgement) by evidence in the natural world.
The general masses seek guidance in what makes them a good Christian. Unfortunately this guidance is often misdirected to focus on details rather than simply maintaining faith in core values.
If someone agrees that any part of the Bible is allegorical, I see no reason why they would say this part is allegorical but this part can’t be.
Historically speaking, religion does not have a very good track record when getting involved in details, but works great when sticking to the big picture.
sdrents
August 30, 2008 @
9:01 PM
Pretty sad that all these Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time!
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
9:29 PM
So if they don’t agree with So if they don’t agree with you then they are irrational?
Sounds kind of like you’re saying all rational people agree with you.
sdrents
August 30, 2008 @
10:11 PM
That would be pompous, That would be pompous, clearly not what I’m saying. Many rational people have differing views. What I said is that I find it disturbing that 67% of the people who voted said that would not even consider a person with a creationist point of view – regardless of the candidate’s political platform as a whole. I for one have crossed party lines and listen to what the candidates have to say on all issues before I vote. I’d like to believe that people listen to a candidates perspective on important issues before they rule them out.
cabal
August 30, 2008 @
11:33 PM
ID and evolution are simply ID and evolution are simply theories. The main difference is that reliable and repeatable data support the evolution model. On the other hand, there is no unbiased, verifiable evidence that supports nor refutes the generic ID model either. The two theories do not contradict each other. Perhaps one day, it may be proven that evolution is merely the mechanism that executes ID. The real problem is connecting the dots from ID to a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. Anyone who blindly equates ID to Christianity simply lacks critical thinking skills and is not qualfied to hold the most powerful job on earth. This is probably the reason why 2/3 of the people who voted in this poll reject a presidential candidate who believes in creation via christianity.
just someone
August 31, 2008 @
1:29 PM
A scientific theory can be A scientific theory can be tested.
ID is belief couched to as a theory. You cannot proved or disprove ID. ID talks about flaws in other theories… but ignores itself. It’s a magician. From what I understand, it says see all these facts… well some known entity is responsible because they are so wonderful… see these theories, they have holes… and because we can find all these issues, our theory is correct… even if refinements of that theory by later researchers addressed those issues using a scientific process..
Evolution is a a process that has been observed. Now the details of how we got here, might be debated… but that evolution occurs and has been observer
patientlywaiting
August 31, 2008 @
2:16 PM
So Sarah Palin wants to teach So Sarah Palin wants to teach Intelligent Design side by side in school.
How is that going to improve our scientific competitiveness?
We will have to import even more workers on H1Bs in the future under her plan.
Dukehorn
August 31, 2008 @
11:57 PM
My question to the My question to the creationists here is how many of you have studied transcription factors in college or in graduate school.
The fact that I’m able to manipulate (back in my lab days) frog embryonic stem cells to drive axial differentiation by shutting a gene down using RNAi or knocking out a gene indicates that certain mutations can drive evolution. We now know the “cocktail” of factors that can differentiate human embryonic stem cells into beating cardiomyocytes. Do you know what we can do to heart disease IF (and it’s a big if) we can get these in-vitro cells to beat at the same rate as a patient’s heart? All the “micro-level” molecular and developmental biology that’s going on is giving us a better understanding on the “macro level” of genetics and evolution. Trust me, we’re learning a lot (which in most cases exposes what we don’t know but scientists are excited by that as opposed to being afraid like certain people).
We may not know what happened before the Big Bang but that’s OK. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive no matter what the extremists on both side have stated. The fact that the earth revolved around the sun didn’t destroy Christianity even though the religious conservatives of Galileo’s day claimed it would do so.
Enlightenment through science is not directly at odds with religion. They are two separate facets of our society (as our Founders well recognize and a number of our present lawmakers do not).
urbanrealtor
September 1, 2008 @
12:39 AM
patientlywaiting wrote:So [quote=patientlywaiting]So Sarah Palin wants to teach Intelligent Design side by side in school.
How is that going to improve our scientific competitiveness?
We will have to import even more workers on H1Bs in the future under her plan.
[/quote]
Awesome.
Chinese and Indian chicks are hot.
Still hoping for more Vietnamese (really their cooking).
If there is some way we could now import Thai cooks and some soul-food culinary experts that would make me happier than a pig in shit.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
10:01 PM
Not sad, sdrents. Perfectly Not sad, sdrents. Perfectly rational, and appropriate. It’s a natural consequence of christian fundamentalists trying to institute their interpretation of religion in public schools and government.
If the Creationists would leave the rest of the country alone with their religious beliefs, the public at large would probably be more open to people of such backgrounds serving in government.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
10:15 PM
John, I don’t think the issue John, I don’t think the issue is whether Christians make good citizens or not. They generally do. The issue is whether we honor the principles upon which this country was founded and respect separation of church and state.
– Christians of all people ought to recognize the sanctity of freedom from religious oppression.
– Christians of all people ought to recognize that one’s relationship with God is a deeply personal matter.
– What kind of Christian would suggest their understanding of God is more perfect than their neighbor’s?
– It is sickness to insist you somehow have an obligation to legislate your neighbor’s religious beliefs.
As Americans, we are free to come to God on our own terms. Evangelicals, get your goddamn religious beliefs out of our public schools and out of our government.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
10:31 PM
sdrents, I think I understand sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps the public’s general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
10:46 PM
gandalf wrote:sdrents, I [quote=gandalf]sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps the public’s general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.[/quote]
My ass gandalf.
We don’t have anything to apologize for or to explain.
It is not unreasonable or bigoted to say that acceptance of a basic scientific premise is a requirement for my vote.
Further, I don’t think projecting religious text onto science is particularly pious or Christian. That sounds more reminiscent of extremism or wahabist Islam.
Aside from evolution, I require that the person I vote for believe in quantum physics and in modern economics.
There is nothing unreasonable in that.
garysears
August 31, 2008 @
4:25 AM
The creation vs. evolution The creation vs. evolution political argument is not about separation of church and state as much as control of public education. Scientific authority is challenged by religious authority, and vice versa, only when one or the other is granted a total monopoly over knowledge. Questions of origin are ultimately religious or philosophical but dogma does not encourage debate.
My own opinion is that most of what people know or believe to be true is based only upon authority. It is true for housing markets and it is true for history text books. Until authority is critically questioned, a person’s beliefs are a product of environment and the bias of accepted authority figures. The power of the teacher as an authority figure is why public school education is the battle ground for competing political agendas.
You can’t function in life without a system of beliefs, opinions, bias, and assumptions. There is a never ending supply of people willing to supply theirs if you lack your own.
gandalf
August 31, 2008 @
8:54 AM
Echo that. No problems with Echo that. No problems with open intellectual and spiritual debates re: origins of Universe and life.
Big problems with Christian Fundamentalists imposing religious dogma in my kid’s public schools. This isn’t done in the name of tolerance, I can assure you that.
After getting the nod to Christian creation mythology, they’ll start pushing for kids to pray in school, then dogma from the bible, then singing hymns. Kind of like Islam, huh?
Religious types feel like we’re being hostile? Other way around, pastor Bob. Stop attempting to legislate and institutionalize your religious beliefs on others.
This is a pluralistic society. Pursue your faith in any way, shape or form you wish outside the public square. Leave public school SCIENCE education alone.
jficquette
September 3, 2008 @
1:37 PM
sdrents wrote:Pretty sad that [quote=sdrents]Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time! [/quote]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
BTW, All this talk of Palin being “vetted” When is Obama going to be vetted??
John
SDEngineer
September 3, 2008 @
2:32 PM
jficquette wrote:
It just [quote=jficquette]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
BTW, All this talk of Palin being “vetted” When is Obama going to be vetted??
John
[/quote]
It’s not that they believe that “God created Heaven and Earth” – it’s that they believe that Genesis is a literal and perfectly true account of HOW he created Heaven and Earth despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I also wouldn’t vote for anyone who believed that the Earth was flat either, nor that disease is the result of demon spirits inhabiting the body, or that astrology was an accurate method of predicting the future. Thanks, but no thanks.
Obama pretty clearly believes that God created the Heavens and the Earth – but apparently he (like the vast majority of moderate Christians) has decided that Genesis is clearly allegorical in nature and reflects the non-scientific worldview of the bronze age culture that originally wrote it down, and should not be taken literally in this day and age.
It wasn’t too long ago that there was an enlightened Cardinal (not Galileo, though the quote has been misattributed to him frequently, and was made by one of his supporters) who said “The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go”. It appears that many schisms of Christianity could use a dose of that advice right about now.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
2:38 PM
SDEngineer said it better. SDEngineer said it better.
NotCranky
September 3, 2008 @
2:33 PM
John,I think you are taking John,I think you are taking things out of context and spamming anti-Obama stuff again. For the sake of this poll, I think most of us are assuming that a “creationist” candidate is a extremist not just a person who somewhat quietly goes about a life that includes faith. We pretty much have no choice, other than not vote, to vote for someone who holds dear some level of faith… or at least pretends to.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
2:35 PM
jficquette wrote:sdrents [quote=jficquette][quote=sdrents]Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time! [/quote]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
John
[/quote]
I am left-leaning and I don’t consider myself biased, ignorant or backwards, so watch it. And there are plenty of mindless zombies for jesus ou there who will blindly vote for whomever Preacher tells them to, sight unseen and with no contemplation, reflection or even prayer on the matter whatsoever. (“Well the god I believe in isn’t short of cash, mister!)
So I need to clear this up right now: speaking for myself (and perhaps others feel the same), I don’t give a damn what a candidate believes in as far as religion, but the problem with someone who will self-identify as a “creationist” is that, per definition, they exclude other equally viable theories, such as evolution and they, by and large, want to exclude those theories from education and consideration of and debate by the population in general. If they keep their views personal, practice them, live by them, etc., I have no problem with it. But they don’t. They want to and try to infiltrate public, separate, secular, government-sponsored fora with these views to the EXCLUSION of all others. THAT is why I object to voting for these candidates. If someone got up, said I believe the world was created by a god in 7 days, but that is just what I think, Sure, no problem. But these people do not operate that way. They want to pass legislation teaching it in public schools (wtf? if that’s what you believe, send your own kids to Bible camp, or The Rock Institute), but don’t shove it on me or my kids. There are lots of religious schools out there, leave the rest of us alone!
underdose
September 3, 2008 @
6:54 PM
Shadowfax wrote:So I need to [quote=Shadowfax]So I need to clear this up right now: speaking for myself (and perhaps others feel the same), I don’t give a damn what a candidate believes in as far as religion, …[/quote]
I feel similarly, but would like to add my own $0.02.
I agree whole-heartedly with Obama that at the end of the day it comes down to judgment. Will a person as president, or in any job for that matter, execute that job’s responsibilities with intelligence and good judgment? Neither candidate has exhibited flawless judgment. No one ever does. But to be a biblical creationist in this technologically advanced age demonstrates either a lack of education or a lack of intellectual sophistication. Either way, someone that is so fanatically out of touch is not someone I trust to have good judgment or make informed decisions.
As for me, I do give a damn about someone’s religious zeal. I think it indicates that Palin is not suited for the job because I doubt she is very bright, and I think McCain is not suited for the job because it shows what kind of hiring decisions he is likely to continue to make in the future.
As for separation of church and state and what the founding fathers intended, go back and read the First Amendment. It does require a secular form of government. The sep. of church and state isn’t just a good idea, it is the ultimate law of the land that the president swears to abide by, uphold and defend. Freedom FROM theocratic rule is one of our protections of undividual freedom. If you want a Christian theocracy you hate America and what it stands for.
djkimd
August 30, 2008 @
10:53 PM
namaste,
“Let us remember namaste,
“Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”
many scientists think that creation is more credibly explained by the FSM than by a christian god.
the above quote is taken from the site, which is easily googled.
Mark Holmes
August 31, 2008 @
1:12 PM
Well, with all this talk of Well, with all this talk of “believers”, I can’t help but remember that it was the most fervent of believers who hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings on September 11th, 7 years ago.
Belief in supernatural deities is something that should have been left behind with the discovery that the world is not flat.
afx114
August 31, 2008 @
1:28 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:Belief in [quote=Mark Holmes]Belief in supernatural deities is something that should have been left behind with the discovery that the world is not flat.[/quote]
… and the discovery that we’re not at the center of the universe… and the discovery of dinosaur bones… and the discovery that there are other Earth-like planets out there… and the discovery that there may have been life on Mars… and the discovery that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
Fortunately for religions, they can evolve and be wedged into any framing in order to remain palpable. If they don’t evolve, they die off. How ironic that religion evolves… survival of the fittest, indeed!
cabal
September 1, 2008 @
7:45 PM
Founding Father quotes and Founding Father quotes and their belief in Deism. A remarkable collection of free thinking men with courage and vision.
John Adams…
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.”
“The United States of America governments have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”
Benjamin Franklin…
“I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.”
“That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service to God is doing good to man. That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter.”
“Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.”
George Washington…
“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”
“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.”
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”
James Madison…
“We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”
“The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
Thomas Paine…
“The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.”
“The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”
“Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine. Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change it.”
“It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal ‘original copy’ that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God.”
“The strongest weapon against all kinds of errors is Reason. I have never used any other, and hope I never will.”
“Only by using reason can man discover God. Take away his reason, and man could not understand anything.”
“Reason can be used to determine that God exists, but it falls far short in discovering all of God’s qualities.”
“It is evident that an Almighty Power exists, even though it is impossible for us to imagine the nature and manner of its existence.”
“Wild and blasphemous ideas of God are formed because man has wandered away from the unchangeable laws of science, and the right use of reason; and because something called revealed religion was invented.”
“God exists, and there it lies.”
“Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, andthis belief is the first article of every man’s creed. It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.”
“The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?”
“There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found inany other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.”
“In Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.”
urbanrealtor
September 1, 2008 @
7:58 PM
citations please.
I need this citations please.
I need this site and or book.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 1, 2008 @
8:01 PM
Dan: C’mon, man, we all know Dan: C’mon, man, we all know leftists don’t read! You just chant slogans and exhortations!
Workers of the World, Unite!
urbanrealtor
September 1, 2008 @
10:14 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: C’mon, man, we all know leftists don’t read! You just chant slogans and exhortations!
Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]
I hate reading.
I actually use a browser that translates this into pictures.
Pictures of you.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 1, 2008 @
10:38 PM
Dan: Time for your Klonopin, Dan: Time for your Klonopin, Little Buckaroo. You’re starting to scare the straights.
And me.
urbanrealtor
September 1, 2008 @
11:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: Time for your Klonopin, Little Buckaroo. You’re starting to scare the straights.
And me.[/quote]
Good
I will rule by fear.
Also, just in case it was not clear I am not actually a homo.
I like hillcrest for the articles.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 2, 2008 @
12:23 AM
Dan: Latin lesson of the day Dan: Latin lesson of the day comes from Caligula: “Oderint dum metuan” (“Let them hate, so long as they fear”). Seems to fit, huh?
I like Hillcrest for the Thai restaurants and men’s boutiques.
Whoops. Did I say that out loud?
gandalf
September 2, 2008 @
8:39 AM
Dang, Allan!
You Dang, Allan!
You Caligula-quoting, Hillcrest-loving, black-and-silver volvo-cruising, pimp-daddy, boutique-shopping Gangster of Fear who like the Raiders. There’s a whole underworld I never knew about! Stop oppressing the same-sex marriage supporters in town. They’re not hurting anyone.
(Oops. Just got my heart rate up.)
Hey, if I mellowed out, you guys would start missing the old Gandalf, ya’ know. What’s hockey without the penalties?
BTW, to answer question above, I don’t like Obama’s faith-pandering thing. I don’t doubt he’s a religious man. More of a Christian than Bush or McCain, for sure. I just don’t like seeing Church and Government mixed together. I’m not an Obama-maniac. Eyes open, he’s a politician, but far better than alternatives on GOP side right now.
BTW, instead of spending our TAX MONEY on ‘faith-based’ initiatives (taxpayer-funded churches), they ought to cut the damn programs and reduce my taxes accordingly. If I want to give to Rick Warren’s Church of the Rock, or whatever he calls it, I’ll am free to give.
And for the record, I’m not anti-God. I used to belong to a Christian Church, attended regularly for many years, ‘tithed’ part of my income, until our rational, old-school New England minister was replaced with a new-age evangelical moron.
Ixne on the etardre. Latin, for go my own way.
(Oops. Just got my heart rate up again.)
SDEngineer
September 2, 2008 @
11:59 AM
Cabal wrote:Founding Father [quote=Cabal]Founding Father quotes and their belief in Deism. A remarkable collection of free thinking men with courage and vision.
George Washington…
…
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”
[/quote]
Another note – some of these are misattributed to Washington – it looks like a cut & paste job that missed a header.
All three are accurate Thomas Jefferson quotes misattributed to George Washington (first one from a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, dated 08/10/1787, 2nd was a letter to the Danbury Baptists which is frequently cited as the origin of the phrase “seperation between Church and State”, 3rd from a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (a frequent correspondant of his) dated 4/21/1803)
Anonymous
September 2, 2008 @
8:38 AM
Even within the scientific Even within the scientific community there can be a hidebound resistance to new ideas or new ways of thinking about things.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The resistance forces scientists to run experiments and prove their ideas are true in multiple ways. Strong resistance to new ideas is a strength of science, not a weakness.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 2, 2008 @
9:38 AM
JordanT: No, I am not talking JordanT: No, I am not talking about open scientific inquiry; rather, I’m talking about closed minded resistance to anything new or those things that challenge the status quo.
The scientific community is no different than any other community in that you have cliques, factions, groupthink and the cult of personality.
To juxtapose religion as a bunch of medieval zealots and science as a group of enlightened free thinkers is to engage in a self-defeating stereotype.
I fully agree with the idea that anything new needs to be tested, proved and validated. No issues there whatsoever. But to dismiss certain things out of hand simply because of their nature or the challenge they offer to the status quo ante is something entirely different and it happens within the scientific community more than anyone is willing to admit. The brouhaha over global climate is a good example. It is now nearly heretical to challenge the “settled” science on this matter, when the science is anything but settled.
People are people, regardless of whether they are religious or scientific, and prone to the same faults, foibles and idiosyncracies.
urbanrealtor
September 2, 2008 @
10:45 AM
@allan
While I agree with @allan
While I agree with what you say, I think that most science lies on a spectrum between the 2 poles you present.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]JordanT: No, I am not talking about open scientific inquiry; rather, I’m talking about closed minded resistance to anything new or those things that challenge the status quo. [/quote]
gandalf
September 2, 2008 @
10:57 AM
People are people, and belief People are people, and belief systems are belief systems, whether they’re religious or otherwise. The sociology of the modern scientific community shares behaviors with other communities. Scientific method, observation, experiment and peer review help to self-correct. Scholarly works seem to provide a similar guiding principle in religious thought.
Equally applicable here, both religious and secular governments are susceptible to abuse of power, and at times violent oppression of their populations. The notion that religious societies are somehow ‘exempt’ from mass-murder and oppression is laughable. The stupendous claim that all non-judeo-christian societies are violent and oppressive is ignorant and bigoted. I’ve made this point previously.
To my mind, some of the most important traditions in this country involve the establishment of individual freedoms (including religion), limitations on government authority and institutional checks on the abuse of power. I see these traditions being eroded by both democrats and republicans, and frighteningly so by Bush republicans. Why the assault on science? Why is it threatening to them? That’s a question for the ages. Why the erosion of liberty and fortification of federal executive power?
The trendline towards consolidation of power seems clear. America is not immune from the failures that have plagued civilization through the ages. That is Imperial Hubris and Christians of all people should see this.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 2, 2008 @
11:31 AM
gandalf: Again, no gandalf: Again, no disagreement from me whatsoever. What I want to avoid and will challenge whenever I see it, are these sweeping generalizations that dilute the quality of the dialogue and stifle response.
We have been on a downward path as far as individual freedoms and civil liberties go since the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s. HUAC led to COINTELPRO which led to FISA which led to the Patriot Act. And, you’re right, the Dems and Repubs both freely contributed to this mess and in the name of Freedom. Whether it was the fight against the Soviets and Godless Communism, or the War on Terror(ism), we’ve always found a convenient enemy to “protect” ourselves against.
The cure, in this case, is worse than the disease.
poorgradstudent
September 2, 2008 @
11:51 AM
Technically creationism isn’t Technically creationism isn’t incompatible with real, good science. The way a lot of people want it taught, however, is.
One can believe that the creation of the cosmos and the spark that makes humanity somehow unique has divine inspiration without coming into conflict with empirical evidence. The scope of our scientific knowledge is such that we don’t know what exactly makes us concious.
Now, there’s a but (isn’t there always?) But, you can’t ignore fossil records, carbon dating, the trajectory of galaxies and the conservation of amino acid sequences across diverse life forms. Dinosaurs and Man did not live at the same time (unless you want to engage in the circular arguement that “God” made the fossils to look like they were really old). We can clearly see that micro-evolution, that described by Darwin, is certainly true, both with bacteria and larger organisms.
People and candidates are entitled to their religious beliefs. However, candidates need to be comitted to limiting education to good science, and leaving theological discussions to the churches.
cabal
September 2, 2008 @
6:58 PM
Urbanrealtor,
Quotes can be Urbanrealtor,
Quotes can be googled. As far as books, you might consider “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” by David L. Holmes. In contrast, there is “Original Intent” by David Barton which I find less compelling.
SDEnginner,
Good catch on header error.
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
10:07 AM
I also took a class in I also took a class in college on eastern religions mostly because, being raised baptist, then catholic then rejecting christianity as a whole because of all the hypocrisy, I had never really had the opportunity to see anything else. If I do take the time at some point to re-explore spirituality, I might be receptive to buddhism (plus the chanting is kinda cool) or one of the more “laid back” eastern practices. I despise the proselytizing of many christian religions (typically fundamentalists) and the exclusionary tendencies of islam and judaism.
I remember really liking the tenet of “do not take what is not given.” (it’s been a while now with no refresher course so I can’t remember which religion this is from). I thought that was such an interesting re-tooling of “thou shalt not steal.” A friend was in Japan in the 80s as a child and his dad left his wallet on a park bench. Hours later, they returned to find the wallet sitting there, with everything still there. It’s not just a religion, but some of these beliefs are really part of the fabric of a culture and behavioral system. (Of course taken with a grain of salt–like anywhere there are probably good bits and bad bits–not so keen on harikari if you offend your ancestors.)
ocrenter
September 3, 2008 @
12:28 PM
this is a Western this is a Western Judeo-Christian-Islam axis specific problem. Because morality in Western/Middle East culture is bound tightly with religion whereas other parts of world there are other sources for morality. same thing with creation stories. most cultures have creation stories. but they are not bound to a strict religious teaching and therefore they are not in conflict with society at large.
For example the Chinese culture has its own creation story. everyone understands that’s a story passed down from the early days of the civilization. folks learn it to pass it down as a story. no one would take it seriously to take that as face value and teach it instead of evolution.
Buddhism doesn’t have a creation story because there is no creator. Nor does Taoism. And therefore these religions blend into the Chinese culture without a creationism war that continues to dominate the society.
Morality in a non-communist Chinese culture, say in Taiwan or Singapore, comes from Confucious (sp) teachings, from bits of Buddha’s teachings and Lao Tzu’s teachings. there’s no black and white rule book (aka a Bible or Koran) where everything must be followed to the letter by the insistance of fundis. therefore, you can’t really get a Fundamentalist Confucious Movement going.
To me as a non-Christian, I see the Christian stories of creationism in the same light as I see the Chinese stories of creationism: attempts to answer the question of where we came from by ancestors from distant past. Except in the Western world, that story got tangled up with religion, but in the Eastern world, the story stays simply a story.
patientlywaiting
September 3, 2008 @
1:30 PM
ocrenter wrote:this is a [quote=ocrenter]this is a Western Judeo-Christian-Islam axis specific problem. [/quote]
I agree 100%.
Allan from Fallbrook
September 3, 2008 @
2:12 PM
OCR: Out of curiosity, how do OCR: Out of curiosity, how do you square your description of Eastern teachings (and Buddhism and Shintoism are religious, by the way), with the militarism of, say, Japan?
Bushido (loosely “the way” or “the way of the warrior”) is a mix of Buddhism, Shintoism and Ikebana and is the backbone of the samurai culture. This militaristic culture, which extols the virtues of the martial spirit and holds that the emperor is divine, is responsible for the rise of Imperial Japan and it’s spread throughout Manchuria, Mongolia, Korea, China and the Pacific.
The Chinese and Koreans are no less warlike and both cultures adhere to the same teachings and, like it or not, religious beliefs.
ocrenter
September 3, 2008 @
9:56 PM
“OCR: Out of curiosity, how “OCR: Out of curiosity, how do you square your description of Eastern teachings (and Buddhism and Shintoism are religious, by the way), with the militarism of, say, Japan?
Bushido (loosely “the way” or “the way of the warrior”) is a mix of Buddhism, Shintoism and Ikebana and is the backbone of the samurai culture. This militaristic culture, which extols the virtues of the martial spirit and holds that the emperor is divine, is responsible for the rise of Imperial Japan and it’s spread throughout Manchuria, Mongolia, Korea, China and the Pacific.
The Chinese and Koreans are no less warlike and both cultures adhere to the same teachings and, like it or not, religious beliefs.”
I don’t believe I mentioned anything about the East Asian cultures not being warlike. Just that religious fundamentalism tend to be less likely.
Shinto is intrinsically Japanese and I can’t say I’m that familiar with it. As for Bushido, that is very much an extension of Shinto with some incorporation of Buddhist thoughts.
They do this a lot in East Asia, they blend religious ideas together a lot. Thus majority of Asians may tell you they are Buddhist, but in reality they practice a mixture of traditional folk religions with a sprinkle of Buddhist ideas.
Same thing with Bushido, all Shinto with a couple of borrowed zen type meditative practices.
Bushido is not spread throughout Asia. it is intrinsically Japanese and its main influence is only in Japan. It fueled the Japanese militaristic rise. But that rise has more to do with what was in vogue back then, European style colonialism.
In general Northern Asians are a lot more warlike than South Asians. Koreans, Manchurians, and Mongolians are actually of very close relations, majority of Northern Chinese are more similar to these races than Southern Chinese. I think that pattern speaks more of culture and environment rather than religion.
DWCAP
September 3, 2008 @
6:28 PM
I stumbled onto this thread I stumbled onto this thread WAY too late, but Id just like to throw out there that my Catholic High School Biology course was taught to me by a nun, and she taught Evolution and nothing else. When asked about it later, she responded with one of the most insightful comments about religion I have ever heard. “Don’t put God in a Box, because as soon as you do you’ll be wrong and have a broken box.”
The problem is that the strictest versions of ID do just that. They tell you exactly what God did with exacting detail, but no supporting evidence other than their word on it. They are putting God in a box, a box of words written thousands of years ago, and I fully believe my evolutionary biology teaching nun was right, again.
As for the point made that since we have no idea what happened at the “big Bang” it musta been God since no one has come up with a good theory to explain it; give us time. We discovered Gravity, what, 400 years ago? DNA 50 years ago. Well get it, but just not fast enough for some people.
And there are plenty of theories about the big bang. Some talk about a constantly exploding and imploding universe. Others about blackholes or dark matter. I have even heard theories I didnt really understand (from my physiscs teacher) about dimensional schisms, the problem being that the math seemed to dictate that if we had a 4 dimension universe, 4th being time, then the other universe must either be a prime number like 7 or 5 dimensions. I was lost long ago and still am today about this one. The point being that people are working on it, we just didnt know enough to identify the problem (still dont) until very reciently.
A thousand years ago everyone who was anyone in Western Culture knew we were the center of the universe. Why dont we teach that in school anymore?
Shadowfax
September 3, 2008 @
11:58 PM
DWCAP wrote:As for the point [quote=DWCAP]As for the point made that since we have no idea what happened at the “big Bang” it musta been God since no one has come up with a good theory to explain it; give us time. We discovered Gravity, what, 400 years ago? DNA 50 years ago. Well get it, but just not fast enough for some people.
And there are plenty of theories about the big bang. Some talk about a constantly exploding and imploding universe. Others about blackholes or dark matter. I have even heard theories I didnt really understand (from my physiscs teacher) about dimensional schisms, the problem being that the math seemed to dictate that if we had a 4 dimension universe, 4th being time, then the other universe must either be a prime number like 7 or 5 dimensions. I was lost long ago and still am today about this one. The point being that people are working on it, we just didnt know enough to identify the problem (still dont) until very reciently. [/quote]
Let’s hope that our educational system is adequately funded and open for the people who have these ideas and the mental horsepower to pursue and prove them to continue to have the support and opportunity to solve or at least hypothecate about them. ID is not the only threat–withdrawal of goverment funding for education and research in areas not “favored” by the creationist politicians will have the same effect as not teaching evolution et al. Just look at what was going on in NASA with the global warming debate… Have a theory that makes the administration look bad? Oooops, so sorry, you were written out of the budget!
August 30, 2008 @ 11:25 AM
Religious people: please get
Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don’t care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There’s something very mentally ill about that.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:35 AM
gandalf wrote:Religious
[quote=gandalf]Religious people: please get out of politics. Go back to church. Worship as you please. I don’t care what you believe. Whatever you do, stop attempting to impose your beliefs on others. There’s something very mentally ill about that.
[/quote]
I have much more respect for those who worship their God then I do for those who worship government as the Socialists, Commies do.
I wish the Socialist would quit trying to push their ridiculous views on others. After all, no where in human history has Socialism worked yet so many people keep trying to push it on others.
John
August 30, 2008 @ 11:53 AM
So you’re suggesting that
So you’re suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialist or communist? That’s pretty much bullshit.
That’s the most anti-American thing I’ve ever heard. We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state.
None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to keep your religion out of politics.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:58 AM
gandalf wrote:So you’re
[quote=gandalf]So you’re suggesting that Americans who believe in separation of church and state are socialists or communists?
That’s the most anti-American thing I’ve ever heard.
We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state and you’re out there suggesting we’re communists.
None of us worship the government. We just want you mentally-ill bible-thumping trailer-park retards to get the hell out of politics. That’s all.
[/quote]
Of course not. Separation of Church/State is in the constitution. Your saying that religious people are pushing their beliefs on others and I am saying I have more respect for those beliefs then I do for the belief that the government is the answer to all as the socialist and commies do.
John
August 30, 2008 @ 12:09 PM
I don’t believe in
I don’t believe in creationism. Allegorically, yes, I believe there is metaphysical ‘truth’ in the creation stories. But not literally. The earth is billions of years old. God didn’t bury dinosaur bones there as a ruse. And I won’t stand for a public school science teacher teaching my kids ‘voodoo science’ to justify their religious beliefs.
My Dad is a scientist. Many scientists are religious. Most of them see no contradiction between science and religion whatsoever. The current conflict between science and religion is a political phenomenon of the ‘Culture War’ and it’s used to divide, group and label voters.
You may agree with many of the positions of the culture warriors, abortion, gay marriage, family values, etc. That’s fine by me. But don’t preach politics from the pulpit. And keep your religion out of our government.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:23 PM
John, I appreciate the
John, I appreciate the clarification. Sorry I misunderstood.
Actually, it seems I agree with you. In many countries, China for example, loyalty to belief systems are used as a means of political control. Whether it’s communist China, the Taliban in Afghanistan or these republican evangelical social conservatives, the larger socio-political patterns are exactly the same. It’s anathema to me.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:26 PM
gandalf: One of the things I
gandalf: One of the things I notice in some of the posts is the mention that this nation was founded “Under God”.
If you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, or James Madison, what you find is that they were either Deists or firmly agnostic, with a strong distrust of “state” religions. Deism was primarily defined as a belief in God (or higher power) who was NOT meddling in the affairs of Man. These men were products of the Age of Reason and recognized the danger of autocratic, state sponsored religions and hence the call for separation of Church and State.
As of late, evangelical Christians have tried to foist the idea that the Founding Fathers were all deeply religious and propounded beliefs that intertwined God with politics. They did nothing of the sort and actually warned strongly against it.
The communism practiced by the Russians and Chinese is really no different from a state sponsored “religion” in my belief, and with all of the attendant woes.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:51 PM
Yeah. I’m there, man.
Had
Yeah. I’m there, man.
Had enough of queer pastor Bob and the American Taliban groping us with their ultra-conservative, anti-dinosaur religious beliefs.
Right on about the founders. Actually, I think I’m a deist. Haven’t really considered it lately. Maybe I should.
Do Deists believe in the housing bubble?
August 30, 2008 @ 2:29 PM
Ah, yes, evolution, the adult
Ah, yes, evolution, the adult fairy tale mostly for man-boys in their 30s and 40s (most of whom were rejected by girls in high school and college, for some reason) who need a nice story to make them feel safe and secure about their rejection of God.
Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations, these man-boys cling on to the purported teachings of similar man-boys in the academy who they have never studied or read, but was confirmed to them in a freshman class in college.
As a core foundation of their religion or because of it, they instantly revolt at the suggestion that there might be an intelligent source behind the creation of the world’s most complex and amazing machines. Women, for some reason, rarely take on this zealous defense of the faith (perhaps because they realize how amazing their bodies are, i.e. God inspired)?
Once they completed their class in school (and perhaps confirmed with an occasional update on a wikipedia article or an article in Yahoo’s science section), as evolutionary automatons, they violently lash out at anyone daring to question their religious beliefs with charges about the need to preserve the “separation of church and state” and accusations that the others are Bible thumping.
They, themselves, though are too intellectually stunted to read countervailing theories, and instead place their religous faith in the most dismal of all “sciences,” seizing on every example of “commonalities” between species as evidence of a COMMON ancestry . . . and not ever considering that these commonalities are evidence of a COMMON designer. (Some of the others call this designer “God.”)
They are content to live with this tale, happy with their question begging theory, and rarely go so far as to inquire into cosmology and how, impossibly (with no God), matter was created out of nothing, a materialistic impossibility.
Again, they never question that their house of cards must also have a logical and supra-physical foundation, namely a Holy God that created all we see, the air we breathe, the ground that we stand on–not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of dependent systems and structures that could not have independently formed at the same exact mili-second in a spontaneous “miracle” of evolution that keep us alive every day.
As they grow older, though, sometimes these man-boys do evolve themselves–even the most dogmatic of the species–likely confronting the realization of their pending mortality–and decide to throw off their fairy tales and stop begging the questions about the origin of the universe and their rebellion against God.
See below.
August 30, 2008 @ 2:29 PM
Though a rare event, one of
Though a rare event, one of the most prominent man-boys recently saw the light:
—————————————————
In early December of 2004 the world renowned atheist author Dr. Antony Flew at age 81 astounded other atheists with his candid admission. Flew, who is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Britain’s Reading University has said that the scientific evidence available to us today is overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of a creator God. Flew, who was raised Methodist became an atheist at age 15, has been an influential champion of atheism for more than fifty years. He has argued repeatedly that there was not enough evidence to support the notion of a creator. But Flew has changed his mind and now believes in God based on the scientific evidence. Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the only plausible explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of the universe. Flew now describes himself as a deist. A deist is someone who believes in a God who is not actively involved in people’s lives. He has stated that he is not a Christian and does not believe in an afterlife. However, Flew has admitted that his God could be a person from the perspective of a being that has intelligence and purpose.
Teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain, and in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses, and in books, articles, lectures and debates, Flew has presented the view that there is a lack of evidence for God. But during this time Flew underwent a gradual conversion from atheism to deism. In a letter he wrote in the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine, “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” Flew said he had “been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature”. Flew correctly specifies that the scientific establishment has simply failed to answer this question. By taking issue with the naturalistic chemical origin of life, Flew is attacking the intellectual foundation of modern atheistic materialism and purely naturalistic evolution. Flew conceded that his current thoughts on the origin of life are similar to those of the intelligent design community.
Flew stated that his “whole life has been guided by the principle of … Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” By doing this he has come to the conclusion from “biologists’ investigation of DNA … the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew went on to say that “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Yet somehow we are still unable to present this very evidence to students at all levels of the American academic system. A newspaper in Texas recently made the obvious connection between Flew’s admission and academics: “If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew’s reputation to recant much of his life’s work, why shouldn’t Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?” Flew has been an atheist for nearly 70 years and has now come to believe that naturalism is inadequate to explain the origin of the universe and life. He has come to this conclusion based solely on scientific evidence. This event should now make it untenable for evolutionists in the United States to continue to argue that Intelligent Design is just Biblical creationism under a different guise.
It is my opinion that the evidence for intelligent design of life and our universe literally leaps out at you from our current body of scientific knowledge. Over the next couple of decades intelligent design will roll in along side of evolution in school curriculums. It should be taught in schools as the science it is, and under the Supreme Court’s current separation of church and State rulings, it is perfectly legal. We are on the brink of a revolution here. It has only been since the middle part of the 19th century that naturalism has dominated science. Virtually all scientists before this era were creationists. In the last fifty years amazing research tools have been invented. The electron microscope, the particle supercollider, the Hubble space telescope, and many other advanced scientific instruments have revealed a creation infinitely more complex than the simplistic ideas born out of the ignorance of the late 19th and early 20th century. We now know cells are not just chemical soup as Darwin imagined, but are indeed nanotechnological systems like nothing we could have ever imagined. A hundred years from now, if the Lord tarries, the age of Darwinian evolution and the rule of naturalism in science may be viewed as the dark ages of science.
August 30, 2008 @ 2:33 PM
bored now.
Can we get back to
bored now.
Can we get back to communism and how we won Vietnam?
Maybe add in something about a good Pho recipe?
Allan, you’re killing me here.
We need you.
Please.
Dan-Boy
(rejected by girls, Grrls!, and lady-boys)
August 30, 2008 @ 2:45 PM
Dan: Sorry, but that Michigan
Dan: Sorry, but that Michigan – Utah game is a good one.
You know, as a Catholic, I believe in God as an animating force in the universe. Where it breaks down for me is with the “God made the world in seven days” tale. I believe that the bible is meant to be interpreted contextually and not literally and I believe that science and religion can co-exist (albeit uneasily). I also believe that neither science nor religion has ALL the answers.
I don’t subscribe to Intelligent Design, but I also don’t know enough about it to argue my reasons persuasively. I found luchabees posts and the article about Flew interesting, but I would want to read up on this before jumping into the fray.
Why are we man-boys again?
Pho! Dude, I love that stuff! There’s a couple of really good Pho joints off of El Cajon Blvd in San Diego.
August 30, 2008 @ 2:49 PM
That one over by the Beauty
That one over by the Beauty Bar is one of my favorite places. Not too far from my house either.
Did you see that new Elaine Pagels book about the Gospel of Judas?
I am reading it right now and its pretty damn good.
August 30, 2008 @ 4:41 PM
LUCHABEE:
It’s okay for you
LUCHABEE:
It’s okay for you to believe in God as an animating force in the universe or whatever else you would like to believe. Such beliefs do not need to be supported by science. There is metaphysical truth in creation myths that help us to understand the nature of human existence. Religion is a vehicle for understanding the nature of our existence and is not in conflict with science or an understanding of the physical universe gained through scientific observation.
Science, on the other hand, an objective understanding of our physical world, including its origins, and is based on research, observation — empirical, measurable and verifiable evidence. Evolution theory is well-supported by science. Every scientist understands that Evolution Theory is incomplete around the margins. Science and our understanding of the physical world is by definition incomplete. It is EVOLVING. What an interesting WORD? Many of us suspect there may yet be, as you suggest, some over-arching principles and forces common to both worlds.
SO THAT WE’RE CLEAR HERE:
“Intelligent Design” in the REAL-WORLD is not a trendy new religio-scientific unification theory. Intelligent Design is right-wing POLITICAL CODE for CREATIONISM, instituting a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible supported by CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS in our schools and public square. The overwhelming majority of ‘Intelligent Design’ voters have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to science. So take your condescending comments and shove them up your man-boy ass.
NO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOL.
August 30, 2008 @ 4:53 PM
Intelligent design is an
Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the “religion is power group” knows it. It is the power they won’t give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has.
I personally like religion for individuals and abhor it when it is mixed with politics. There seems to me, such and obvious disconnect between religion as a spirtiual tool and politics of religion that it cast a huge shadow of doubt on both, when they are mixed.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:02 PM
Creationism was manufactured
Creationism was manufactured to prepare us to go back to Theocracy. The signs of that theocracy are springing up all around us in America and abroad. 14th Century minds armed with 21st Century nukes.
The Creationists exist for only one mission – secular power.
To Hell with a Creator who restricts inalienable rights to those required by a bunch of slave-raping plantation owners to give them overwhelming advantages over someone like me.
To Hell with a boss who claims he has overwhelming advantages over me because he is better at obeying his Creator than I am.
I am not responsible because millenia of our bosses have used our labor to build a maddening maze that controls every aspect of our life, our thoughts, and our faith. That is the Creation, our own work. The need to keep expanding that labyrinth has exhausted us of our resources, required that we be dumbed down so we don’t question the project, and weakened its own foundations to the point of crumbling. If we don’t keep expanding it, we reach a dead end.
Some pursuit of happiness.
Our cultures and values are competing evolutionary strategies, and all of them eventually will fail. If we refuse to use our evolved intellects to critically dissect those values then we will follow our indoctrinated path blindly to that failure. That’s how faith blinds us. The competition itself is insane because faith allows no alternative to absolute victory – fine when you’re just stealing one continent from its natives, but suicide when imposed on an entire planet of people of many faiths just as strong as ours. To stick our head out of the maze we must admit there is an outside; that we can tear down the walls of the maze; that we can build something else instead.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:07 PM
More importantly, the entire
More importantly, the entire point of the Far Right’s machinations since 1968 is to convince Americans that the government can’t make things any better, which leaves everything in the hands of the corporate empire.
The corporate empire needed to burn an infinite amount of fossil fuels to enrich its barons quickly while throwing enough goodies at ordinary citizens so they wouldn’t notice their government was being bought out and their brains were being washed out. Thus government could not be used to stop ecological suicide.
Now we are living in the consequences of this plan. War for oil, energy crises, a quadrillion-dollar speculative bubble, a fantastic increase in economic inequality everywhere, a Christian crusade to subjugate the world at gunpoint, an America that tolerates torture and surveillance and government-partnered media.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:16 PM
Intelligent Design means alot
Intelligent Design means alot of things, but it is primarily used to spin religious views in a way that advances religious fundamentalism in our schools and public square.
The nation and its traditions are damaged by this effort.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:22 PM
Wow arraya, I didn’t
Wow arraya, I didn’t understand what you said, but I could tell it was passionate.
I never realized my atheism was the reason girls ignored me in high school! Thank you dis-interested religious stranger!
Josh
August 30, 2008 @ 5:09 PM
“Intelligent design is an
“Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. The literal interpretations are history and even the “religion is power group” knows it. It is the power they won’t give up not the story. Religion evolves too. It always has.”
Actually this is a common misconception. ID requires a designer at the end of the day, i.e, it requires someone or something to do the design which in itself means there is or was a supreme entity. So, whatever you want to call it god, karma, buddah, or jerry lewis, ID is plainly the belief in a supreme entity or designer, i.e., a faith based belief which is commonly known as religion, whether you recognize it or not.
Significantly, ID has always failed to pass muster in court in terms of schools trying to teach ID as a part of the science curriculum, because judges, even those appointed by repubs see ID for what it is: RELIGION.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:22 PM
Does anyone know the term for
Does anyone know the term for a “religion” that believes that all other “religions” are just a manifestation of the laws of the universe – physics, chemistry, mathematics, electromagnetism, spacetime, etc? I’ve always wondered if there was a term to describe the belief in such things as a “religion,” though not in the traditional sense of the word.
eg: someone who says, “My God is the Fibonacci Sequence”
August 30, 2008 @ 5:46 PM
afx1114-If you want to go
afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.
“All matter originates and exists by a virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds the most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscience an intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”
Max Planck-Founder of quantum physics.
August 30, 2008 @ 6:07 PM
arraya wrote:afx1114-If you
[quote=arraya]afx1114-If you want to go spiritual with science look to quantum physics.[/quote]
I’m not looking to go spiritual with science. I want to know if there’s a term for the worship of numbers, and the numbers themselves, not some unknown creator of said numbers.
August 30, 2008 @ 7:09 PM
afx, let me know what you
afx, let me know what you think of this…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml
The dude’s from UCSD, theoretical physics…
September 1, 2008 @ 12:29 AM
gandalf wrote:afx, let me
[quote=gandalf]afx, let me know what you think of this… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml The dude’s from UCSD, theoretical physics…[/quote]
Thanks gandalf, that was a great read (sorry, took me a while to get around to it). I am admittedly a novice when it comes this kind of stuff, but from what I’ve gathered from watching The Universe, reading Neil deGrase Tyson, and reading science fiction, it sounds like a fairly elegant theory. I guess we’ll see what happens when they fire up the LHC!
September 1, 2008 @ 12:31 AM
P.S., the comments on that
P.S., the comments on that link are INSANE.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:45 PM
Quote:Intelligent design is
[quote]Intelligent design is an attempt at compromise gandalf. [/quote]
Um, no. ID is another in a long list of attempts by America’s religious leaders to force their agenda upon the nation.
A compromise? Hardly. Trojan Horse is more like it.
I have no problem with religion or anyone’s beliefs. I have a problem with anyone trying to force any of their beliefs upon me. America was founded on the right of freedom to think whatever you want, so let me.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:02 AM
Costamesa: “America was
Costamesa: “America was founded on the right of freedom to think whatever you want, so let me.”
Yes, but when is learning about another culture, religion, theory, etc. has become forcing beliefs on any one. I didn’t know a school class has so much power. I didn’t know that you got a higher grade for Believing, than Listening. Darn, I could have gotten better grades. You must not watch much TV, read newspapers, or use the internet. These are much more influential than any class. How did you form your current beliefs? From your parents, teachers, classmates, or others? Did you research everything you know to the nth degree? Did you know everything at once at the age of 21, or did you know everything over a few years?
I have found as I learn from other points of views, my beliefs may change (even slightly) over time. Some points of views have even strengthened my own beliefs. If I ignore someone’s point of view without critical thought, I guess the world’s flat…
Has everyone taken their diversity training at work lately?
LuckyInOC
August 31, 2008 @ 1:31 AM
However you guys want to
However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution.
Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).
I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez?
Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?
August 31, 2008 @ 11:11 AM
“CardiffBaseball
“[quote=CardiffBaseball]However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution. ”
I find the evangelical movement very frightening. Why are we supposed to be milk toasty on the topic?I think people need to get over expecting appeasement just they have God on their side.
“Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).”
Islam is not part of this debate because McCain and Obama are not going to Mecca for votes. They are swapping endorsements with Christian religious fanatics and their charlatan leadership. I would vote for a moderate and reasonable candidate from any of these religions. I like the way Kerry handled it.
“I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez? ”
Most Atheist I ever met are obnoxious. I also think making a major endeavor to get Atheism endorsed is stupid. I would expect an Atheist to come with more bothersome baggage than most believers. I’d like to see an Agnostic, Deist, free thinker or such but it isn’t going to happen.So the best I can do is try to get a sense for which of the candidates respects such individuals more.
“Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?”
I feel terrible about him speaking at the Rick Warren event. I am going to write him about how that effects me as a swing voter and as an American.
Thomas Paine said he could conceptualize most of the material for “The age of Reason” when he was ten.I don’t think that capacity is really so unusual. I would be glad to see an intro to world religions and philosophy taught in the 5th or 6th grade, with social studies perhaps. Creationism and other myths could justifiably be explained in that context IMO. I would want it to be. I feel that it is unjust that we don’t have curriculum like that for children who grow up under one brand of ignorance or another, or perhaps intellectual neglect, at home.
[/quote]
August 31, 2008 @ 11:16 AM
I wouldn’t mind the teaching
I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:11 AM
afx114 wrote:I wouldn’t mind
[quote=afx114]I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.[/quote]
NOT in favor of creationism but wouldn’t mind a high school level course on “world religions.” where the major 5 or 6 (not including schisms of christianity) all get equal treatment.
September 3, 2008 @ 9:27 AM
Shadowfax: My high school
Shadowfax: My high school (Catholic) had a course called “Comparative Religions” that was a requirement my Junior and Senior years. It was helmed by a Jesuit priest who held a law degree from Yale and was an expert in Canon Law.
He would invite rabbis, pastors, imams, etc from various denominations and religions to come and discuss (not debate) their religions. The only two organizations that turned the invitation down were the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons.
It was fascinating stuff, especially the connection between Judaism and Christianity and Islam and Judaism/Christianity (the “Abrahamic Religions”).
It was very interesting and enlightening, to say the least. Even back then (early 1980s) you could sense that Islam was different (the imam that attended was from a moderate sect in Berkeley of all places). He was very clear in his assertion that Islam demanded pride of place and that, while it could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism, it demanded to be first among equals. All of this was said without animosity, but was a home truth to him and not subject to negotiation.
September 3, 2008 @ 9:39 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
It was very interesting and enlightening, to say the least. Even back then (early 1980s) you could sense that Islam was different (the imam that attended was from a moderate sect in Berkeley of all places). He was very clear in his assertion that Islam demanded pride of place and that, while it could co-exist with Christianity and Judaism, it demanded to be first among equals. All of this was said without animosity, but was a home truth to him and not subject to negotiation.[/quote]
I’ve heard this exact assertion by a great many Christian pastors/ministers/whatevers over the years. Indeed, it seems built in to most Christians (especially of the more fundamentalist sects – Baptists, Pentecostals, etc) to assume this pride of place without even really thinking about it.
Judaism not so much, but I think that Jews abroad have had about 2000 years of being the underdog religion and getting used to it.
I think it’s the Mosaic tradition (especially in both Christianity and Islam) of being exclusive (that is, there is no road to God except through belief and service in that one particular religion) that leads to this insistence.
September 3, 2008 @ 9:51 AM
I’ve been trying to avoid the
I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later.
Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:02 AM
jpinpb: I would take issue
jpinpb: I would take issue with the assertion that our Founding Fathers were religious. Most were Deists and products of the Age of Reason.
Most, if not all, also had a very strong aversion to state religions, especially after the experiences of England, France and Germany with same.
I completely agree as to both separation of Church and State and freedom of religion, but also that “freedom OF religion” is not the same as “freedom FROM religion”.
Lastly, I would state that there is a huge difference between religion/religiosity and faith/spirituality. You don’t need a “religion” to find God.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:34 AM
Allan – thank you for the
Allan – thank you for the clarification. I should have said “some” of our forefathers were religious. And I also agree that you don’t have to be religious to believe in God and be spiritual.
Yes, there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, but separation of church and state implies to me the government will not involve church in political matters.
SDEngineer, I thought the Puritans came here b/c their beliefs were not allowed in the UK, hence thereafter this became a country open to all religions. In any case, thanks for making it clear.
September 3, 2008 @ 12:00 PM
jpinpb wrote:SDEngineer, I
[quote=jpinpb]SDEngineer, I thought the Puritans came here b/c their beliefs were not allowed in the UK, hence thereafter this became a country open to all religions. In any case, thanks for making it clear.[/quote]
You are correct that they came here from the UK because the established Church was the Anglican Church which barely tolerated Catholicism (allowed it to be worshipped underground), and didn’t tolerate at all any other religion, but they simply wanted a different establishment Church of their own.
It was the Enlightenment movement of the 1700’s – a core tenet of which was the belief of reason over dogma (and was the reason the late 1700’s were called “The Age of Reason”) – which advocated for religious tolerance which became our legacy (indeed, the Constitution as written was considered to be largely the legacy of the Enlightenment movement, and most of the major Founding Fathers considered that to be their core philosophy – Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Paine were all very much a part of the Enlightenment).
This is part of the reason why the idea that these Founders were fundamentalists is so ludicrous to anyone who has actually studied that period of history – while Fundamentalists have always been around, the late 1700s was one of the time periods where they had the least political influence, and while there were some involved in the drafting of the Constitution, the majority were Enlightement thinkers (and many of the most prominent weren’t even Christians at all, but Deists).
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
for a concise rundown of the Enlightenment and it’s effects on both our own government, and society in general. It was a major turning point in the human condition, and without it, it’s unlikely that our government would have ever been constituted in it’s current form.
September 3, 2008 @ 12:52 PM
Viewed in the light, it’s
Viewed in the light, it’s amazing how subversive and anti-American these right-wing Christian types are, attempting to rewrite history and implement theocratic principles in America.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:12 AM
jpinpb wrote:I’ve been trying
[quote=jpinpb]I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later.
Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda. [/quote]
Amen. haha! No, but seriously, I’ll repeat what others have said–believe whatever you want, catholic, fundamentalist, muslim, judaism, buddhist, jainist, wicca, druid, satanist, rastafari (sp?), whatever, just don’t push it like crack on the rest of us or have the arrogance to tell me I am wrong because I don’t think like you do. Leave me to do what I want to do (as long as I am not hurting anyone (human or animal) or causing a nuisance) and believe and practice what you want.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:17 AM
jpinpb wrote:I’ve been trying
[quote=jpinpb]I’ve been trying to avoid the political threads on this site, but I’ve succombed a little bit today. This is an engaging thread. I don’t want to argue b/c I know people have their strong beliefs as they should. I have not thoroughly read all the posts as some have been lengthy. I just want to clarify one thing.
“One nation under God.” The “under God” part was added much later.
Under God
Though our forefathers were religious, I believe their intent was to have separation of church and state. I feel very strongly since the pilgrims came to this country to practice their religious beliefs that people should be FREE to have their religious beliefs, whatever they might be and that no government should put upon anyone their religious agenda. [/quote]
Actually, the original pilgrims (the Puritans) would have been dead-set against religious freedom. They came here in essence to set up their own little theocracy that wouldn’t fly in the UK (which at the time also didn’t allow freedom of religion). There was no freedom of religion in a Puritan society.
Fortunately for us, a great many merchant settlements were set up (the majority of settlements from NY on down the coast were originally set up as trade posts), as well as more moderate religions like the Quakers of Pennsylvania. They comprised the majority by the time the US was formed.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:00 AM
My favorite course in college
My favorite course in college was a “History of Religion” class. It wasn’t about beliefs except for when those beliefs drove history through massive social change. The class focused more on how the religions formed and evolved through the ages, and more importantly, why they formed and evolved. It was more of a philosophy class than it was a religion class.
Whether or not you are religious or spiritual, there is no debating that religion has shaped world history. Whether it was for the better or worse is the true debate.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:20 AM
afx114 wrote:My favorite
[quote=afx114]My favorite course in college was a “History of Religion” class. It wasn’t about beliefs except for when those beliefs drove history through massive social change. The class focused more on how the religions formed and evolved through the ages, and more importantly, why they formed and evolved. It was more of a philosophy class than it was a religion class.
Whether or not you are religious or spiritual, there is no debating that religion has shaped world history. Whether it was for the better or worse is the true debate.[/quote]
One last comment then I need to get some work done: I picked up Joseph Campbell’s “Power of Myth” some years ago and it covered what could be considered primitive religions in that these myths from all over the world did what religions–and to some extent science–try to do today: explain the mysteries of the world and universe. It was amazing to me how primitive peoples with very limited exposure to anyhting other than their immediate environment had many of the same creation myths. Polynesian-based mythologies had an mother myth centered on the sea (unsurprising) but the story was markedly similar to a land-locked african tribe’s creation myth, where the earth was formed from the sands of the desert, for example. A lot of allegorical relationships and origins for many of the christian parables–i love it when the bible thumpers think that the bible was the origin of these stories. They’ve been around for millenia before BC. And don’t even get me started on the fact that a lot gets lost in translation from ancient Aramaic to hebrew to latin to “King James.”
OK rant over.
September 3, 2008 @ 9:42 AM
Shadowfax wrote:afx114
[quote=Shadowfax][quote=afx114]I wouldn’t mind the teaching of the history of Christianity in school as long as they also taught the history of Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Islam. I’m curious how many of those in favor of creationism in this thread would be OK with this.[/quote]
NOT in favor of creationism but wouldn’t mind a high school level course on “world religions.” where the major 5 or 6 (not including schisms of christianity) all get equal treatment.[/quote]
I would be very happy to see a class that explores the history and various aspects of the different world religions at the highschool level. I took one in undergrad (I believe it was in through anthropology dept)and just loved it – one of my favorite classes. I believe that it in order to relate to other people it is important to have an objective understanding of their culture, which includes their religion.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:06 AM
CardiffBaseball wrote:However
[quote=CardiffBaseball]However you guys want to frame the argument it comes off as very hostile to people of faith. As it pertains to my being a christian, I neither care to study to prove the 6000 year creation story, ID or the Theory of Evolution.
Meaning, from a religious viewpoint, that I don’t feel like I have a dog in the fight. I would rather not go on an intensive effort to attach my religious belief to ID. So I am more drawn to arguments AGAINST ID when I do spend a little time on the matter. And certainly I don’t subscribe to the 6000 years ago Adam/Eve description. So in that regard I am with all of you guys, i.e. No ID, No Strict Creationist.
However I absolutely identify as a Christian. Despite my preference I’d have considered voting for Romney who is not a Christian. I’d have considered Joe Lieberman who is Jewish. I don’t find someone’s personal faith as critical to my voting decision. My interpretation of folks on this site seem to be overwhelmingly hostile towards Christianity (but surprisingly mum on say Islam).
I am anxiously awaiting all of the atheist candidates to emerge for the highest office so you guys will be able to get out and vote. The hell with Blacks or Women, how many years will it take for Americans to elect an Atheist Prez? Or a Buddhist Prez?
Obviously I am being a smart alec because we know Gandalf will vote Obama, my question is… was Obama asked where he stands on creationism? I assume he answered to your liking? As I type this I am watching him speak at the Rick Warren event, how did you feel about that?
[/quote]
If I remember correctly, the poll referred to candidates leaning toward creationism. This is “code” for people who are fervent advocates of a particular christian religious view who are rabidly trying to force this view on others. I think the appeal of Ron Paul for instance–despite a couple anomalies (right to choose)–is that he’s a reasonable guy with his own beliefs but he’ll use reason to govern and not any wacko religious beliefs. Same with Obama–he may have listened to Wright’s speeches, but this doesn’t mean he is out to “get whitey.” In fact, I think he will operate very well in the ivory tower of washington and the white house…
August 31, 2008 @ 1:37 AM
Separation of Church & State
Separation of Church & State not in Constitution…
Religion is only referenced in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Of course, everyone knows the first 10 Amendments are ‘Rights to the people against Goverment’, not prohibitions of the people.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This only states the Government cannot establish Government based religion such that of England and the Church of England at the time. Nor can the Government prohibit how you chose to believe. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
It does not state: freedom FROM religion as most want ‘believe’.
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.” – James Madison, FEDERALIST No. 10 The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
The founding fathers planned for religious influence in politics… it’s a called a Republic, not a Democracy. If you believe in Democracy everyone should be frightened, mob rule.
gandalf: “We’ve got 232 years of tradition in this country respecting separation of church and state and you’re out there suggesting we’re communists.”
Actually, no… we only have 206 years of tradition:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” – Thomas Jefferson
in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists.
full text: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Although, Jefferson was great man and president at the time, this was his personal belief, not an official declaration of the Government. Its unheard of that the citizens of the United Stated do not agree with its president’s views (Bush)… Its kind of ironic that in 1800 Jefferson and Arron Burr was tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives chose the lesser of two evils. Sounds too familiar… nothing seems to change.
However, I can find one man that seams to disagree with Thomas Jefferson:
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington
Who’s right… both are right… It’s called diversity…
Maybe we only have 130 years of tradition:
It wasn’t until 1878 that the term, “separation of church and state” was used by the Supreme Court. The next use by the Court was in 1947 thru the 1970s. Not much tradition here…
The use of ‘Separation of Church and State’ has mostly been referenced only in the last 60 yrs.
Could it be there was no prayer, references to God, etc in schools prior to 1947?
Was everyone before 1947 atheists? agnostics?
Why the sudden change of ‘heart’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
If everyone is so upset at religion in Gov’t, I vote we should rescind Thanksgiving and December 25th as a Government holiday and make everyone work those days… The Government is supporting a religious belief in God…
Lucky In OC
August 31, 2008 @ 2:07 AM
BTW.
Watching the Bob
BTW.
Watching the Bob Barr/Alan Keyes section of Borat while posting is just the funniest thing ever.
September 1, 2008 @ 12:08 AM
This only states the
This only states the Government cannot establish Government based religion such that of England and the Church of England at the time. Nor can the Government prohibit how you chose to believe. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
It does not state: freedom FROM religion as most want ‘believe’.
In a way it does. When your exercising of your right to religion impinges on my right to exercise my religion.. what ever that may be.
The use of ‘Separation of Church and State’ has mostly been referenced only in the last 60 yrs.
Could it be there was no prayer, references to God, etc in schools prior to 1947?
Was everyone before 1947 atheists? agnostics?
Why the sudden change of ‘heart’?
1947 saw the end of a war with two enemies that would virtually go to any limit (Germany and Japan) to win. I think people were ‘feeling’ their religion more.
“Under God” was added to the pledge in 1954 in response to campaign by the Knights of Columbus. This is why there is a strange hiccup in the rhythm of the Pledge. Try saying it without the “Under God”.
“E pluibus Unum” on our money was replaced by “In God We Trust” in 1956 by the 84th Congress.. partially in response to the McCarthy communist witch hunt and being in the height of the cold war — of that time. The reason why people are bringing up separation of church and state is to remind those who want to continue along the path of writing ‘God’ into everything, that the original founders did not, and intentionally did not, include reference to God in secular government.
Also added during 50’s:
“So Help me God” added to oaths of office.
September 2, 2008 @ 11:30 AM
LuckyInOC wrote:
“It is
[quote=LuckyInOC]
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” – George Washington
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington
…
Lucky In OC
[/quote]
I would be very cautious about using these quotes. Both are from David Barton, and both apparently appeared out of whole cloth for his book. There is no contemporous record of George Washington having said either.
Even David Barton’s website now admits that these quotations are “questionable”.
See here for what one Christian group that supports Church/State seperation has to say about Barton:
http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm
Contemporous sources from George Washington’s time indicate that he was VERY reticent to talk about religion at all. He never went on the record about his beliefs in religion at all, even in his private letters. Several sources among his friends indicate he may have been a Deist (which would hardly be surprising considering his circle of friends).
August 31, 2008 @ 12:09 PM
LuckyInOC wrote:Yes, but when
[quote=”LuckyInOC”]Yes, but when is learning about another culture, religion, theory, etc. has become forcing beliefs on any one.[/quote]
Sounds like your concen is whether ID can be taught as a religious theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with that and don’t know very many people who do. In fact, ID *IS* taught in public schools as such – take a comparative religions class and it’s pretty likely to be in there.
Where I have a problem is when, as in the case of the Kansas Public School System, science gets pushed aside to promote a religious agenda. I see many examples in this thread of the opposite concern. The discussion centers on how to keep them separate and where to find a balance.
Science is science, religion is religion. They can coexist and they’re not the same thing. Efforts to overwrite one with the other (I also understand how the believers would feel as though science is trying to overwrite their beliefs…) are just plain wrong.
And, if I seem a bit aggressive on this topic – it’s because I lived in the South (NC) for fifteen years. Virtually everyday an Evangelical type felt compelled to tell me how I was going to hell because I didn’t openly agree with whatever someone else had told them to believe. Ignorant intolerance really blows, regardless of the source. I couldn’t wait to escape that place and can understand why believers are frustrated with efforts to push back on the ID movement.
And, after all that, I still have to admit that I’m basically agnostic because of nothing more than the Teleological argument. It’s impossible to deny outright – there’s no contrary evidence. However, as a person who’s made their way through life by learning and practicing the natural sciences, it seems clear that we don’t have a speck of evidence proving ID either. It’s just an interesting hypothesis. That’s all.
And on the original topic of the thread – I wouldn’t have a problem with someone who believed whatever they liked. I’d have a problem who says that they will take actions to exercise their particular flavor of religious beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted the poll at first glance…but I have to admit to be a bit biased towards rejecting even the discussion of the topic. History of the topic points out that if ID comes up at all, this person seems to consider ‘belief as science’ to be on the table. That shows a lack of adequate judgement IMO and is something I’d avoid.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:17 PM
One other thing I’m seeing in
One other thing I’m seeing in this thread and others…a tendency for the vociferous types to decry what they believe to be victimization at the hands of those who do not agree with them.
I just don’t get how someone is victimized simply because they can’t have everything the way that someone else said it should be.
What’s up with that?
A free society should allow anyone to believe whatever they want – but that doesn’t ensure the manifestation of all said beliefs.
Few would disagree that it would be ridiculous if I said that I believe that Brad Pitt is my love-slave and I am being victimized by ‘the system’ because this hasn’t yet come to pass?
How is that any different from saying that ID is a legitimate scientific fact and ‘the system’ is standing in the way of having it be taught at taxpayer expense?
August 31, 2008 @ 1:01 PM
Again, no problem with
Again, no problem with discussions of religion and science, origins of life. No problem with religion being covered as such in school under the topic of religion, preferrably under a pluralistic approach.
But I am no-way, no-how okay with right-wing fundamentalists pushing Creationism, Christian dogma and literal interpretations of the Christian bible on my kids in a public school SCIENCE class.
That’s not an attack on anyone’s faith. That’s an attack on science. It’s an attack on seperation of church and state. It’s an attack on religious freedom. It’s a bigoted attack on pluralism.
If you support this, you’re really of the mind that America should be some kind of Christian theocracy. Your brothers and sisters live in Afghanistan and they’re called the Taliban.
August 30, 2008 @ 5:07 PM
stansd, yeah I do lean
stansd, yeah I do lean libertarian. Most of us in GenX do. This religion in schools thing is just crap. We’re not turning our schools into madrassas.
Tell me, if the religious right gets past creationism in school, how long before they start in with school prayer? This isn’t some sideshow. This is today’s GOP, and Kansas is actually a state.
Look, we live in a pluralistic society. You have to accomodate people of different belief systems. Frankly, I don’t see secular schools as being in conflict with religion. I don’t see religion as being in conflict with science.
The ID movement is absolutely about instituting religion in our government and schools. The GOP of the 21st century wants to take America in the direction of a theocracy. I completely disagree.
The Middle East is full of fundamentalist theocracies. From where I sit, the Taliban suck ass and Afghanistan is a shitty country. I don’t think we should go there with America.
August 31, 2008 @ 11:02 AM
gandalf wrote:
Tell me, if
[quote=gandalf]
Tell me, if the religious right gets past creationism in school, how long before they start in with school prayer? This isn’t some sideshow. This is today’s GOP, and Kansas is actually a state.
[/quote]
You’re apparently ignorant to the fact that the secular progressives have been adding the teaching of Islam (with prayer rugs and everything) into Klownifornia schools.
Apparently religion in schools is ok if it’s the religion of the lunatics that are trying to kill us but not if it’s Christianity? Pathetic….
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/byronislam.htm
September 3, 2008 @ 3:11 PM
I believe you are referring
I believe you are referring to the California 7th grade social studies text: Across the Centuries.
I taught that book. Yes, it included chapters on Islam. It also included chapters on the rise of Christianity through the Middle Ages. We spent weeks on this. So yes, we studied Christianity.
To claim the emphasis was on Islam is disingenuous, at best.
I believe the goal was not to push any single belief system on the kids, but rather to show how cultures evolved and the role religion and/or philosophical beliefs played in their expansion within a particular time frame. (fall of Rome to the start of the Renaissance.)
I don’t doubt that some teachers took the lessons too far, but that really is an administrative problem – as opposed to a flaw in the curriculum itself.
There was supplementary curriculum entitled “History Alive” which used a hands on approach to teaching these concepts. I recall the Islam unit contained an activity where the students were shown and invited to do a prayer (no, they were not forced to praise Allah…) The point was actually to show that there was a physical component to the act of prayer. But mostly, we just discussed the 5 pillars and how the religion spread and eventually divided into the two sects. The kids had a LOT of questions. We did our best to find unbiased answers to them.
We also reenacted the life of a monk from the Byzantine Empire by sitting silently and copying text into calligraphy. We played Gregorian chants in the background. We drew pictures of cathedrals and discussed how and why the church was the center of daily life.
We traded salt for gold during our Africa unit. The kids figured out how/why salt and other spices might have been so valuable to various cultures. They figured out how trade routes emerged.
We did so many simulations and reenactments, I can’t even remember them all. I do recall reading the reflection journals and term papers the kids wrote after each unit of study. History was not just a list of names and dates they had to remember, but a composite of civilizations that were interesting and real to them. I left the names and dates to their 9th grade teachers… 😉
I’ll be the first to admit that we didn’t delve very deep into any topic, but i can say with confidence that the curriculum is compelling and not at all controversial, if taught as intended, even with the reenactments.
Man, if a superficial unit on Islam upset you, you should have seen how the 8th grade was learning about slavery! Ever been on a slave ship?
September 3, 2008 @ 4:31 PM
thanks to the wonderfully
thanks to the wonderfully liberal and sympathetic nature of america, a crackpot woman can be selected for vp candidate. regardless of hot or not. now it’s up to the people to decide if they want said crackpot woman.
unfortunately, many voting americans subscribe to crackpot theories and will elect officials on the basis of common beliefs alone. but that particular group of crackpots are traditionally against women in command and leadership roles, so it might be a wash. a terrible moral quandry, even; a vote for the kindred crackpot is also a vote for man hating lesbians. uppity women who don’t know their place. she probably doesn’t know a crock pot from a dutch oven. or a griddle from a skillet. grits from cream of wheat. it’s right that she believes in the god creator, but it ain’t right that she neglects her god given duty as a wife. she should be at home doing her duties with her husband as number one priority and not galavanting about with the societies peoples and wantin to pursuading peoples to do what fors and working in offices with other wimmins husbins…
god created wimmin from adam to serve him. not be politicking, that’s the devil’s work.
September 3, 2008 @ 5:19 PM
Drunkle,
And she better look
Drunkle,
And she better look damn too while she does all that wimin work.
John
August 30, 2008 @ 11:06 PM
luchabee wrote:Blinded by
[quote=luchabee]Blinded by pride and super impressed with evolutionary jargon and non-sensical observations
[/quote]
Darwin devoted decades to categorizing thousands of observations in order to provide sense and order to them, ultimately culminating in profound evidence for the theory. He was in fact, one of the most devoted empiricists that ever lived. Darwin began his original trip relatively ignorant of evolution and was recommended by his own mentor to treat the theory with an eye of precaution. Under these pretenses he was drawn to the idea as the only explanation of countless observations from around the world.
If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:49 PM
robson wrote:
If you had ever
[quote=robson]
If you had ever read Origin of Species you would understand how ignorant your statement is.
I recommend you go to the effort of understanding something before passing judgement on it. At least then you could point out accurate faults, which do exist.[/quote]
I think you are criticizing too obvious and obstinate an opponent.
Also, turning a blog into a book club is a bad idea.
You have good points but you would be better served to summarize them as opposed to reference reading material that is beyond the skill level of others.
Cynical perhaps but I am a Realtor. I am used to being cynical about my peers.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:10 AM
Dan: Easy, bubba. I think
Dan: Easy, bubba. I think reading Darwin is well within the capabilities of any of those posting on this thread. I have to say that I have seen some really thoughtful and well phrased responses and, given the volatile nature of the topic, respectful as well.
The guy that ran the AP Physics team at my high school was also an adjunct professor of physics at Stanford. He was really into quantum physics and we’d discuss temporal relastics and quanum mechanics after study group. He referred to quantum physics as “heresy” because the physics community at the time (early 1980s) treated it as such. Even within the scientific community there can be a hidebound resistance to new ideas or new ways of thinking about things. The one thing I remember from his discussions is that the “conventional” physics community feared quantum physics because they couldn’t understand it and it threatened to overturn much of what they BELIEVED.
Geeky as hell, I still read physics books for enjoyment and it is hard not to believe in God when you do. Spiritually (not religion) and science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive concepts.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:25 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Spiritually (not religion) and science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive concepts.[/quote]
Excellent distinction. Any religion can be mutually exclusive of science or not if it so mandates.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:38 AM
robson: Except I meant to say
robson: Except I meant to say “spirituality” and not “spiritually”.
Being Catholic (and Jesuit Catholic at that), I try to avoid religiosity wherever I find it, and one of the things most worrisome to me about evangelical Christianity is the willingness of its adherents to brusquely shoulder aside any doctrine, belief or system that doesn’t square with their worldview. While a comparison to fundamental Islam might be somewhat overdone, the same concern exists with both: “You’re either with us, or against us”.
This mentality is completely inimical to both the concept of free speech and free thinking, and also to the idea that science and religion can co-exist and even be mutually supportive.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:27 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]robson: Except I meant to say “spirituality” and not “spiritually”.
Being Catholic (and Jesuit Catholic at that), I try to avoid religiosity wherever I find it, and one of the things most worrisome to me about evangelical Christianity is the willingness of its adherents to brusquely shoulder aside any doctrine, belief or system that doesn’t square with their worldview. While a comparison to fundamental Islam might be somewhat overdone, the same concern exists with both: “You’re either with us, or against us”.
This mentality is completely inimical to both the concept of free speech and free thinking, and also to the idea that science and religion can co-exist and even be mutually supportive.[/quote]
hear hear
August 31, 2008 @ 12:39 AM
I feel so misunderstood on
I feel so misunderstood on the compromise bit. It was sarcastic. The irony of evolution in the dogma related to the word of “God” has not escaped me. Anyway, Gandalf and others are doing a great job.
Gandalf, I woudl task the Politician to deal with potential religious fanatics.. Instead they court them, pander to them and appease and endorse them, as far as electability issues will allow for. The Republican party does this more so of course, but the democrats respond to the vote potential, not the problem of separation of church and state or the moral hazard of letting religion rise in power. They don’t want to offend the evangelicals and have made calculated efforts to win more of them over. I am sure you are aware of all this anyway. Just basically agreeing with you except that I think we can’t expect the religious tyes to back off.
If it comes to a school near me I am taking out a can of WA.
Just teaching the nonsense wouldn’t bother me. I tell my kids when there are alternate views to what they bring home from school and that there are alternate views to what they take out of the house.The problem with the religious fanatics is the power and control issues behind it all. Or is it that they are still trying to save us all from “hell”? No I don’t buy that. These people want to own more souls not free them.
I am inspired by the good judgement reflected in this poll and I hope like hell to see a big backlash against any party or politician who tries to ride faith into office and especially for those who try to build a base of this type of voter, as a tool for ascension to power.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:19 AM
urbanrealtor-
Point
urbanrealtor-
Point definitely taken. Maybe you’ll be less cynical in a few years. It is just hard to read the equivalent of a blind person telling me that Yosemite is ugly.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:04 PM
Religious freedom is what
Religious freedom is what this country was founded on. When we start to blur that line we start to lose focus on this beautiful idea. When schools start teaching creationism we have no leg to stand on. As a country we cannot say we stand for freedom yet impose the beliefs of others on our children. How can that be any different from communism? We as a free people should be allowed to make up our own minds and not be forced to accept the ideals of others, even if they are the majority. People can be good without believing in any one religion. I myself believe fully in this idea of freedom. I wish more people would. But instead of freedom they are blinded by their beliefs. They must feel like they are smarter, know something others don’t, or are superior in their knowledge. And it seems to me that those are the same type of people that drove the pilgrims to jump on a ship and set sail for some unknown land. Not knowing if they would survive. Wanting true freedom.
August 30, 2008 @ 3:31 PM
Gandalf,
Unless you are a
Gandalf,
Unless you are a strict libertarian, is not the whole purpose of a career in politics to impose your beliefs on others?
I’m a bible believer, who would probably term my view on the origin of the world as theistic evolution. That said, I’m continually intrigued by the venom spewed by folks like yourself towards people of faith?
Are religious believers often guilty of attempting to legislate their beliefs onto others? Absolutely? Has faith of many stripes been used as an excuse for some of the most heinous crimes in human history? Without question. Do I condone this? Absolutely not? Why is it, though that the level of passion (hatred) exhibited by folks like yourself manifests itself much more frequently when religious motives are behind this legislative imposition of beliefs? Why is that relevant?
If it’s using the strong arm of the state to coerce others into doing things that you hate, level against that, but leave religion out of it. Doing otherwise is religious discrimination at best, outright hatred at worst.
There’s enough of that out there as it is…there’s no need for true believers of liberty to pile on.
Stan
August 30, 2008 @ 3:52 PM
Stan,
Good post. Plus, it was
Stan,
Good post. Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.
Who creates more value in our society? Believers or Atheists? Believers in God do in my opinion because good works is part of the belief system.
John
August 30, 2008 @ 4:11 PM
jficquette wrote:Plus, it was
[quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.
August 30, 2008 @ 4:21 PM
Yep. And those same
Yep. And those same believers will be celebrating when a catastrophic earthquake hits California. Just watch.
August 30, 2008 @ 4:29 PM
afx114 wrote:jficquette
[quote=afx114][quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.[/quote]
afx is framing it a bit harsh.
However, he has a point.
John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.
I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.
The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.
I don’t recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don’t know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation.
August 30, 2008 @ 9:52 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:afx114
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114][quote=jficquette]Plus, it was buses full of believers not atheists that I saw rushing to New Orleans to give aid in the aftermath of Katrina.[/quote]
That may be true, but it was also believers and not atheists who said that New Orleans deserved it because the city had caught The Ghey. It was also the believers and not the atheists who wished a similar fate upon Denver last week.[/quote]
afx is framing it a bit harsh.
However, he has a point.
John, you cant say that followers of faith necessarily add so much just because of their faith.
I think you end up with good people and assholes on both sides.
The quakers were instrumental in the underground railroad. The president they put in the white house resigned as he was being impeached for criminal acts.
I don’t recall the last time a suicide bomber left a note espousing atheism and I don’t know the last time I saw a worthwhile charity without some religious affiliation. [/quote]
Christians who really try to include Christ’s teachings of love do create value in our society. Its also not part of Christianity to take joy in any one’s suffering. True believers don’t think God punishes anyone. Just the weirdo’s and there are a lot of weirdo’s (g).
So what bugs me is that Christians take so much grief from the MSM without any recognition of the value our Church’s create in the community.
John
August 30, 2008 @ 3:31 PM
Duplicate
Duplicate
August 30, 2008 @ 5:30 PM
I find it funny that none of
I find it funny that none of the evolutionists can explain what was before the big bang, nor do they try. There was nothing, then BOOM. Yeah, seems to be some metaphysical questions there that you are just hand waving away.
I’ll concede that evolutionary theory explains alot about the fossil record and our knowledge of flora and fauna and I find the creation myth to be an allegory, not an actual depiction of the history of the universe. So a week was actually 14 billion years….
August 30, 2008 @ 6:07 PM
>> I find it funny that none
>> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang
manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I’m going in the right direction.
Scientists often explore new ground or formulate hypothises based on instinct. Metaphysics does a better job of explaining our experience as humans than empirical deduction, or even induction.
Science and Religion are not incompatible. They rest alongside each other in relative harmony, if we would only allow it. The one plumbs the unexplainable depths of human consciousness, intuition and experience; the other attempts to describe with predictable accuracy the tangible, external, observable phenomena of the physical world.
I used a semicolon in that last paragraph. 😉
August 30, 2008 @ 10:49 PM
gandalf wrote:>> I find it
[quote=gandalf]>> I find it funny that none of the evolutionists
>> can explain what was before the big bang
manda, Evolution is principally a biological science. Astrophysicists have and continue to examine this question. To my mind, on intuition alone, I suspect it is periodic. Cycles or vibrations. I have no evidence upon which to base this and lack the knowledge to know if I’m going in the right direction. [/quote]
A very large number of astrophysicists pursue their field in search of answering the question of why it is any of this exists. The big bang represents a singularity at which point all known physics breaks down (same as within a black hole) and it is completely valid to say we don’t know what happened before it. However, astrophysicists do not simply brush this off, in fact, the ability to explain this is the goal of many. Gandalf-there are theories along these lines such as that the universe will end in a big crunch and then re-expand in a new big bang. Or even that each black hole is the beginning of a new universe.
Quantum physics presents many troubling aspects from a strictly rational viewpoint. Many scientists believe in God and search the universe to better understand how He works or how he put into motion that which exists today.
All that said, evolution is a theory that works within the context of all of this uncertainty. However in this uncertain universe the day to day and even eon to eon processes on Earth are known to very high certainty. If you “believe” the sun will rise tomorrow than it is advisable to believe the world is more than a few thousand years old.
Creationism has many variants. I am very open to the idea that God “created” a universe governed by a set of laws in which we have evolved.
Strict creationism states that no species of life has ever gone extinct, as God would not permit this in His design. I am not open to this idea because I believe in fossils and I do not believe dinosaurs exist today.
Creationism itself has evolved quite a bit over the years.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:23 PM
@ Robson:
As someone raised
@ Robson:
As someone raised in a deeply catholic household (I am agnostic) I have never understood this emphasis on projecting religion onto science. I have never thought them mutually exclusive or antithetical.
I just don’t understand why denying a basic scientific tenet makes one a better Christian.
Is it not reasonable to locate divine creation at the point of origin for our natural world (without saying that origin is 6000 years ago)?
Further, does not the concept of faith make the need for evidence in the natural world irrelevant?
Dan
August 31, 2008 @ 12:10 AM
Dan-What makes one a better
Dan-What makes one a better Christian has evolved over the years as the church has denounced certain ideas only to repeal those earlier decisions as further evidence was uncovered. It was once heresy to believe the world is not flat.
The question of faith is interesting considering the historical context that Popes have been persuaded against their own “faith” (or previous judgement) by evidence in the natural world.
The general masses seek guidance in what makes them a good Christian. Unfortunately this guidance is often misdirected to focus on details rather than simply maintaining faith in core values.
If someone agrees that any part of the Bible is allegorical, I see no reason why they would say this part is allegorical but this part can’t be.
Historically speaking, religion does not have a very good track record when getting involved in details, but works great when sticking to the big picture.
August 30, 2008 @ 9:01 PM
Pretty sad that all these
Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time!
August 30, 2008 @ 9:29 PM
So if they don’t agree with
So if they don’t agree with you then they are irrational?
Sounds kind of like you’re saying all rational people agree with you.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:11 PM
That would be pompous,
That would be pompous, clearly not what I’m saying. Many rational people have differing views. What I said is that I find it disturbing that 67% of the people who voted said that would not even consider a person with a creationist point of view – regardless of the candidate’s political platform as a whole. I for one have crossed party lines and listen to what the candidates have to say on all issues before I vote. I’d like to believe that people listen to a candidates perspective on important issues before they rule them out.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:33 PM
ID and evolution are simply
ID and evolution are simply theories. The main difference is that reliable and repeatable data support the evolution model. On the other hand, there is no unbiased, verifiable evidence that supports nor refutes the generic ID model either. The two theories do not contradict each other. Perhaps one day, it may be proven that evolution is merely the mechanism that executes ID. The real problem is connecting the dots from ID to a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. Anyone who blindly equates ID to Christianity simply lacks critical thinking skills and is not qualfied to hold the most powerful job on earth. This is probably the reason why 2/3 of the people who voted in this poll reject a presidential candidate who believes in creation via christianity.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:29 PM
A scientific theory can be
A scientific theory can be tested.
ID is belief couched to as a theory. You cannot proved or disprove ID. ID talks about flaws in other theories… but ignores itself. It’s a magician. From what I understand, it says see all these facts… well some known entity is responsible because they are so wonderful… see these theories, they have holes… and because we can find all these issues, our theory is correct… even if refinements of that theory by later researchers addressed those issues using a scientific process..
Evolution is a a process that has been observed. Now the details of how we got here, might be debated… but that evolution occurs and has been observer
August 31, 2008 @ 2:16 PM
So Sarah Palin wants to teach
So Sarah Palin wants to teach Intelligent Design side by side in school.
How is that going to improve our scientific competitiveness?
We will have to import even more workers on H1Bs in the future under her plan.
August 31, 2008 @ 11:57 PM
My question to the
My question to the creationists here is how many of you have studied transcription factors in college or in graduate school.
The fact that I’m able to manipulate (back in my lab days) frog embryonic stem cells to drive axial differentiation by shutting a gene down using RNAi or knocking out a gene indicates that certain mutations can drive evolution. We now know the “cocktail” of factors that can differentiate human embryonic stem cells into beating cardiomyocytes. Do you know what we can do to heart disease IF (and it’s a big if) we can get these in-vitro cells to beat at the same rate as a patient’s heart? All the “micro-level” molecular and developmental biology that’s going on is giving us a better understanding on the “macro level” of genetics and evolution. Trust me, we’re learning a lot (which in most cases exposes what we don’t know but scientists are excited by that as opposed to being afraid like certain people).
We may not know what happened before the Big Bang but that’s OK. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive no matter what the extremists on both side have stated. The fact that the earth revolved around the sun didn’t destroy Christianity even though the religious conservatives of Galileo’s day claimed it would do so.
Enlightenment through science is not directly at odds with religion. They are two separate facets of our society (as our Founders well recognize and a number of our present lawmakers do not).
September 1, 2008 @ 12:39 AM
patientlywaiting wrote:So
[quote=patientlywaiting]So Sarah Palin wants to teach Intelligent Design side by side in school.
How is that going to improve our scientific competitiveness?
We will have to import even more workers on H1Bs in the future under her plan.
[/quote]
Awesome.
Chinese and Indian chicks are hot.
Still hoping for more Vietnamese (really their cooking).
If there is some way we could now import Thai cooks and some soul-food culinary experts that would make me happier than a pig in shit.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
Not sad, sdrents. Perfectly
Not sad, sdrents. Perfectly rational, and appropriate. It’s a natural consequence of christian fundamentalists trying to institute their interpretation of religion in public schools and government.
If the Creationists would leave the rest of the country alone with their religious beliefs, the public at large would probably be more open to people of such backgrounds serving in government.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:15 PM
John, I don’t think the issue
John, I don’t think the issue is whether Christians make good citizens or not. They generally do. The issue is whether we honor the principles upon which this country was founded and respect separation of church and state.
– Christians of all people ought to recognize the sanctity of freedom from religious oppression.
– Christians of all people ought to recognize that one’s relationship with God is a deeply personal matter.
– What kind of Christian would suggest their understanding of God is more perfect than their neighbor’s?
– It is sickness to insist you somehow have an obligation to legislate your neighbor’s religious beliefs.
As Americans, we are free to come to God on our own terms. Evangelicals, get your goddamn religious beliefs out of our public schools and out of our government.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:31 PM
sdrents, I think I understand
sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps the public’s general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:46 PM
gandalf wrote:sdrents, I
[quote=gandalf]sdrents, I think I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps the public’s general distrust of right-wing evangelicals is a result of their political activism this past decade, social behavior which may have encroached on the belief systems of others? IOW, maybe people have become biased against the religious right for good reason. In my view, the backlash is a rational and completely acceptable response.[/quote]
My ass gandalf.
We don’t have anything to apologize for or to explain.
It is not unreasonable or bigoted to say that acceptance of a basic scientific premise is a requirement for my vote.
Further, I don’t think projecting religious text onto science is particularly pious or Christian. That sounds more reminiscent of extremism or wahabist Islam.
Aside from evolution, I require that the person I vote for believe in quantum physics and in modern economics.
There is nothing unreasonable in that.
August 31, 2008 @ 4:25 AM
The creation vs. evolution
The creation vs. evolution political argument is not about separation of church and state as much as control of public education. Scientific authority is challenged by religious authority, and vice versa, only when one or the other is granted a total monopoly over knowledge. Questions of origin are ultimately religious or philosophical but dogma does not encourage debate.
My own opinion is that most of what people know or believe to be true is based only upon authority. It is true for housing markets and it is true for history text books. Until authority is critically questioned, a person’s beliefs are a product of environment and the bias of accepted authority figures. The power of the teacher as an authority figure is why public school education is the battle ground for competing political agendas.
You can’t function in life without a system of beliefs, opinions, bias, and assumptions. There is a never ending supply of people willing to supply theirs if you lack your own.
August 31, 2008 @ 8:54 AM
Echo that. No problems with
Echo that. No problems with open intellectual and spiritual debates re: origins of Universe and life.
Big problems with Christian Fundamentalists imposing religious dogma in my kid’s public schools. This isn’t done in the name of tolerance, I can assure you that.
After getting the nod to Christian creation mythology, they’ll start pushing for kids to pray in school, then dogma from the bible, then singing hymns. Kind of like Islam, huh?
Religious types feel like we’re being hostile? Other way around, pastor Bob. Stop attempting to legislate and institutionalize your religious beliefs on others.
This is a pluralistic society. Pursue your faith in any way, shape or form you wish outside the public square. Leave public school SCIENCE education alone.
September 3, 2008 @ 1:37 PM
sdrents wrote:Pretty sad that
[quote=sdrents]Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time! [/quote]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
BTW, All this talk of Palin being “vetted” When is Obama going to be vetted??
John
September 3, 2008 @ 2:32 PM
jficquette wrote:
It just
[quote=jficquette]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
BTW, All this talk of Palin being “vetted” When is Obama going to be vetted??
John
[/quote]
It’s not that they believe that “God created Heaven and Earth” – it’s that they believe that Genesis is a literal and perfectly true account of HOW he created Heaven and Earth despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I also wouldn’t vote for anyone who believed that the Earth was flat either, nor that disease is the result of demon spirits inhabiting the body, or that astrology was an accurate method of predicting the future. Thanks, but no thanks.
Obama pretty clearly believes that God created the Heavens and the Earth – but apparently he (like the vast majority of moderate Christians) has decided that Genesis is clearly allegorical in nature and reflects the non-scientific worldview of the bronze age culture that originally wrote it down, and should not be taken literally in this day and age.
It wasn’t too long ago that there was an enlightened Cardinal (not Galileo, though the quote has been misattributed to him frequently, and was made by one of his supporters) who said “The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go”. It appears that many schisms of Christianity could use a dose of that advice right about now.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:38 PM
SDEngineer said it better.
SDEngineer said it better.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:33 PM
John,I think you are taking
John,I think you are taking things out of context and spamming anti-Obama stuff again. For the sake of this poll, I think most of us are assuming that a “creationist” candidate is a extremist not just a person who somewhat quietly goes about a life that includes faith. We pretty much have no choice, other than not vote, to vote for someone who holds dear some level of faith… or at least pretends to.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:35 PM
jficquette wrote:sdrents
[quote=jficquette][quote=sdrents]Pretty sad that all these claims of keeping religion out of politics means that 67% of people who voted in this mini-poll will not even consider a candidate who happens to have bible based beliefs. Thus, as polled, solely because a person has a religious belief – they cannot earn your vote. I look at candidates based on what they bring to the table. Based on these votes, it is pretty clear that the atheists, etc. are the ones that let their beliefs, or lack thereof, get involved in politics. i.e, anyone with bible based beliefs can’t get their vote regardless of their political policy.
Oddly of course, even all the liberal candidates find their relationship with God prior to vote time! [/quote]
It just shows how bias, ignorant and backwards the left is to not vote for someone for their religous beliefs.
They will vote for a guy like Obama who hangs out with thugs like Rezko and the terriost Ayers but not for someone who believes that God created Heaven and Earth.
John
[/quote]
I am left-leaning and I don’t consider myself biased, ignorant or backwards, so watch it. And there are plenty of mindless zombies for jesus ou there who will blindly vote for whomever Preacher tells them to, sight unseen and with no contemplation, reflection or even prayer on the matter whatsoever. (“Well the god I believe in isn’t short of cash, mister!)
So I need to clear this up right now: speaking for myself (and perhaps others feel the same), I don’t give a damn what a candidate believes in as far as religion, but the problem with someone who will self-identify as a “creationist” is that, per definition, they exclude other equally viable theories, such as evolution and they, by and large, want to exclude those theories from education and consideration of and debate by the population in general. If they keep their views personal, practice them, live by them, etc., I have no problem with it. But they don’t. They want to and try to infiltrate public, separate, secular, government-sponsored fora with these views to the EXCLUSION of all others. THAT is why I object to voting for these candidates. If someone got up, said I believe the world was created by a god in 7 days, but that is just what I think, Sure, no problem. But these people do not operate that way. They want to pass legislation teaching it in public schools (wtf? if that’s what you believe, send your own kids to Bible camp, or The Rock Institute), but don’t shove it on me or my kids. There are lots of religious schools out there, leave the rest of us alone!
September 3, 2008 @ 6:54 PM
Shadowfax wrote:So I need to
[quote=Shadowfax]So I need to clear this up right now: speaking for myself (and perhaps others feel the same), I don’t give a damn what a candidate believes in as far as religion, …[/quote]
I feel similarly, but would like to add my own $0.02.
I agree whole-heartedly with Obama that at the end of the day it comes down to judgment. Will a person as president, or in any job for that matter, execute that job’s responsibilities with intelligence and good judgment? Neither candidate has exhibited flawless judgment. No one ever does. But to be a biblical creationist in this technologically advanced age demonstrates either a lack of education or a lack of intellectual sophistication. Either way, someone that is so fanatically out of touch is not someone I trust to have good judgment or make informed decisions.
As for me, I do give a damn about someone’s religious zeal. I think it indicates that Palin is not suited for the job because I doubt she is very bright, and I think McCain is not suited for the job because it shows what kind of hiring decisions he is likely to continue to make in the future.
As for separation of church and state and what the founding fathers intended, go back and read the First Amendment. It does require a secular form of government. The sep. of church and state isn’t just a good idea, it is the ultimate law of the land that the president swears to abide by, uphold and defend. Freedom FROM theocratic rule is one of our protections of undividual freedom. If you want a Christian theocracy you hate America and what it stands for.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:53 PM
namaste,
“Let us remember
namaste,
“Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”
many scientists think that creation is more credibly explained by the FSM than by a christian god.
the above quote is taken from the site, which is easily googled.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:12 PM
Well, with all this talk of
Well, with all this talk of “believers”, I can’t help but remember that it was the most fervent of believers who hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings on September 11th, 7 years ago.
Belief in supernatural deities is something that should have been left behind with the discovery that the world is not flat.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:28 PM
Mark Holmes wrote:Belief in
[quote=Mark Holmes]Belief in supernatural deities is something that should have been left behind with the discovery that the world is not flat.[/quote]
… and the discovery that we’re not at the center of the universe… and the discovery of dinosaur bones… and the discovery that there are other Earth-like planets out there… and the discovery that there may have been life on Mars… and the discovery that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
Fortunately for religions, they can evolve and be wedged into any framing in order to remain palpable. If they don’t evolve, they die off. How ironic that religion evolves… survival of the fittest, indeed!
September 1, 2008 @ 7:45 PM
Founding Father quotes and
Founding Father quotes and their belief in Deism. A remarkable collection of free thinking men with courage and vision.
John Adams…
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.”
“The United States of America governments have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”
Benjamin Franklin…
“I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.”
“That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service to God is doing good to man. That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter.”
“Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.”
George Washington…
“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”
“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.”
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”
James Madison…
“We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”
“The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
Thomas Paine…
“The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.”
“The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”
“Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine. Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change it.”
“It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal ‘original copy’ that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God.”
“The strongest weapon against all kinds of errors is Reason. I have never used any other, and hope I never will.”
“Only by using reason can man discover God. Take away his reason, and man could not understand anything.”
“Reason can be used to determine that God exists, but it falls far short in discovering all of God’s qualities.”
“It is evident that an Almighty Power exists, even though it is impossible for us to imagine the nature and manner of its existence.”
“Wild and blasphemous ideas of God are formed because man has wandered away from the unchangeable laws of science, and the right use of reason; and because something called revealed religion was invented.”
“God exists, and there it lies.”
“Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, andthis belief is the first article of every man’s creed. It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.”
“The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?”
“There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found inany other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.”
“In Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.”
September 1, 2008 @ 7:58 PM
citations please.
I need this
citations please.
I need this site and or book.
September 1, 2008 @ 8:01 PM
Dan: C’mon, man, we all know
Dan: C’mon, man, we all know leftists don’t read! You just chant slogans and exhortations!
Workers of the World, Unite!
September 1, 2008 @ 10:14 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: C’mon, man, we all know leftists don’t read! You just chant slogans and exhortations!
Workers of the World, Unite![/quote]
I hate reading.
I actually use a browser that translates this into pictures.
Pictures of you.
September 1, 2008 @ 10:38 PM
Dan: Time for your Klonopin,
Dan: Time for your Klonopin, Little Buckaroo. You’re starting to scare the straights.
And me.
September 1, 2008 @ 11:07 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: Time for your Klonopin, Little Buckaroo. You’re starting to scare the straights.
And me.[/quote]
Good
I will rule by fear.
Also, just in case it was not clear I am not actually a homo.
I like hillcrest for the articles.
September 2, 2008 @ 12:23 AM
Dan: Latin lesson of the day
Dan: Latin lesson of the day comes from Caligula: “Oderint dum metuan” (“Let them hate, so long as they fear”). Seems to fit, huh?
I like Hillcrest for the Thai restaurants and men’s boutiques.
Whoops. Did I say that out loud?
September 2, 2008 @ 8:39 AM
Dang, Allan!
You
Dang, Allan!
You Caligula-quoting, Hillcrest-loving, black-and-silver volvo-cruising, pimp-daddy, boutique-shopping Gangster of Fear who like the Raiders. There’s a whole underworld I never knew about! Stop oppressing the same-sex marriage supporters in town. They’re not hurting anyone.
(Oops. Just got my heart rate up.)
Hey, if I mellowed out, you guys would start missing the old Gandalf, ya’ know. What’s hockey without the penalties?
BTW, to answer question above, I don’t like Obama’s faith-pandering thing. I don’t doubt he’s a religious man. More of a Christian than Bush or McCain, for sure. I just don’t like seeing Church and Government mixed together. I’m not an Obama-maniac. Eyes open, he’s a politician, but far better than alternatives on GOP side right now.
BTW, instead of spending our TAX MONEY on ‘faith-based’ initiatives (taxpayer-funded churches), they ought to cut the damn programs and reduce my taxes accordingly. If I want to give to Rick Warren’s Church of the Rock, or whatever he calls it, I’ll am free to give.
And for the record, I’m not anti-God. I used to belong to a Christian Church, attended regularly for many years, ‘tithed’ part of my income, until our rational, old-school New England minister was replaced with a new-age evangelical moron.
Ixne on the etardre. Latin, for go my own way.
(Oops. Just got my heart rate up again.)
September 2, 2008 @ 11:59 AM
Cabal wrote:Founding Father
[quote=Cabal]Founding Father quotes and their belief in Deism. A remarkable collection of free thinking men with courage and vision.
George Washington…
…
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”
[/quote]
Another note – some of these are misattributed to Washington – it looks like a cut & paste job that missed a header.
All three are accurate Thomas Jefferson quotes misattributed to George Washington (first one from a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, dated 08/10/1787, 2nd was a letter to the Danbury Baptists which is frequently cited as the origin of the phrase “seperation between Church and State”, 3rd from a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (a frequent correspondant of his) dated 4/21/1803)
September 2, 2008 @ 8:38 AM
Even within the scientific
Even within the scientific community there can be a hidebound resistance to new ideas or new ways of thinking about things.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The resistance forces scientists to run experiments and prove their ideas are true in multiple ways. Strong resistance to new ideas is a strength of science, not a weakness.
September 2, 2008 @ 9:38 AM
JordanT: No, I am not talking
JordanT: No, I am not talking about open scientific inquiry; rather, I’m talking about closed minded resistance to anything new or those things that challenge the status quo.
The scientific community is no different than any other community in that you have cliques, factions, groupthink and the cult of personality.
To juxtapose religion as a bunch of medieval zealots and science as a group of enlightened free thinkers is to engage in a self-defeating stereotype.
I fully agree with the idea that anything new needs to be tested, proved and validated. No issues there whatsoever. But to dismiss certain things out of hand simply because of their nature or the challenge they offer to the status quo ante is something entirely different and it happens within the scientific community more than anyone is willing to admit. The brouhaha over global climate is a good example. It is now nearly heretical to challenge the “settled” science on this matter, when the science is anything but settled.
People are people, regardless of whether they are religious or scientific, and prone to the same faults, foibles and idiosyncracies.
September 2, 2008 @ 10:45 AM
@allan
While I agree with
@allan
While I agree with what you say, I think that most science lies on a spectrum between the 2 poles you present.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]JordanT: No, I am not talking about open scientific inquiry; rather, I’m talking about closed minded resistance to anything new or those things that challenge the status quo. [/quote]
September 2, 2008 @ 10:57 AM
People are people, and belief
People are people, and belief systems are belief systems, whether they’re religious or otherwise. The sociology of the modern scientific community shares behaviors with other communities. Scientific method, observation, experiment and peer review help to self-correct. Scholarly works seem to provide a similar guiding principle in religious thought.
Equally applicable here, both religious and secular governments are susceptible to abuse of power, and at times violent oppression of their populations. The notion that religious societies are somehow ‘exempt’ from mass-murder and oppression is laughable. The stupendous claim that all non-judeo-christian societies are violent and oppressive is ignorant and bigoted. I’ve made this point previously.
To my mind, some of the most important traditions in this country involve the establishment of individual freedoms (including religion), limitations on government authority and institutional checks on the abuse of power. I see these traditions being eroded by both democrats and republicans, and frighteningly so by Bush republicans. Why the assault on science? Why is it threatening to them? That’s a question for the ages. Why the erosion of liberty and fortification of federal executive power?
The trendline towards consolidation of power seems clear. America is not immune from the failures that have plagued civilization through the ages. That is Imperial Hubris and Christians of all people should see this.
September 2, 2008 @ 11:31 AM
gandalf: Again, no
gandalf: Again, no disagreement from me whatsoever. What I want to avoid and will challenge whenever I see it, are these sweeping generalizations that dilute the quality of the dialogue and stifle response.
We have been on a downward path as far as individual freedoms and civil liberties go since the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s. HUAC led to COINTELPRO which led to FISA which led to the Patriot Act. And, you’re right, the Dems and Repubs both freely contributed to this mess and in the name of Freedom. Whether it was the fight against the Soviets and Godless Communism, or the War on Terror(ism), we’ve always found a convenient enemy to “protect” ourselves against.
The cure, in this case, is worse than the disease.
September 2, 2008 @ 11:51 AM
Technically creationism isn’t
Technically creationism isn’t incompatible with real, good science. The way a lot of people want it taught, however, is.
One can believe that the creation of the cosmos and the spark that makes humanity somehow unique has divine inspiration without coming into conflict with empirical evidence. The scope of our scientific knowledge is such that we don’t know what exactly makes us concious.
Now, there’s a but (isn’t there always?) But, you can’t ignore fossil records, carbon dating, the trajectory of galaxies and the conservation of amino acid sequences across diverse life forms. Dinosaurs and Man did not live at the same time (unless you want to engage in the circular arguement that “God” made the fossils to look like they were really old). We can clearly see that micro-evolution, that described by Darwin, is certainly true, both with bacteria and larger organisms.
People and candidates are entitled to their religious beliefs. However, candidates need to be comitted to limiting education to good science, and leaving theological discussions to the churches.
September 2, 2008 @ 6:58 PM
Urbanrealtor,
Quotes can be
Urbanrealtor,
Quotes can be googled. As far as books, you might consider “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” by David L. Holmes. In contrast, there is “Original Intent” by David Barton which I find less compelling.
SDEnginner,
Good catch on header error.
September 3, 2008 @ 10:07 AM
I also took a class in
I also took a class in college on eastern religions mostly because, being raised baptist, then catholic then rejecting christianity as a whole because of all the hypocrisy, I had never really had the opportunity to see anything else. If I do take the time at some point to re-explore spirituality, I might be receptive to buddhism (plus the chanting is kinda cool) or one of the more “laid back” eastern practices. I despise the proselytizing of many christian religions (typically fundamentalists) and the exclusionary tendencies of islam and judaism.
I remember really liking the tenet of “do not take what is not given.” (it’s been a while now with no refresher course so I can’t remember which religion this is from). I thought that was such an interesting re-tooling of “thou shalt not steal.” A friend was in Japan in the 80s as a child and his dad left his wallet on a park bench. Hours later, they returned to find the wallet sitting there, with everything still there. It’s not just a religion, but some of these beliefs are really part of the fabric of a culture and behavioral system. (Of course taken with a grain of salt–like anywhere there are probably good bits and bad bits–not so keen on harikari if you offend your ancestors.)
September 3, 2008 @ 12:28 PM
this is a Western
this is a Western Judeo-Christian-Islam axis specific problem. Because morality in Western/Middle East culture is bound tightly with religion whereas other parts of world there are other sources for morality. same thing with creation stories. most cultures have creation stories. but they are not bound to a strict religious teaching and therefore they are not in conflict with society at large.
For example the Chinese culture has its own creation story. everyone understands that’s a story passed down from the early days of the civilization. folks learn it to pass it down as a story. no one would take it seriously to take that as face value and teach it instead of evolution.
Buddhism doesn’t have a creation story because there is no creator. Nor does Taoism. And therefore these religions blend into the Chinese culture without a creationism war that continues to dominate the society.
Morality in a non-communist Chinese culture, say in Taiwan or Singapore, comes from Confucious (sp) teachings, from bits of Buddha’s teachings and Lao Tzu’s teachings. there’s no black and white rule book (aka a Bible or Koran) where everything must be followed to the letter by the insistance of fundis. therefore, you can’t really get a Fundamentalist Confucious Movement going.
To me as a non-Christian, I see the Christian stories of creationism in the same light as I see the Chinese stories of creationism: attempts to answer the question of where we came from by ancestors from distant past. Except in the Western world, that story got tangled up with religion, but in the Eastern world, the story stays simply a story.
September 3, 2008 @ 1:30 PM
ocrenter wrote:this is a
[quote=ocrenter]this is a Western Judeo-Christian-Islam axis specific problem. [/quote]
I agree 100%.
September 3, 2008 @ 2:12 PM
OCR: Out of curiosity, how do
OCR: Out of curiosity, how do you square your description of Eastern teachings (and Buddhism and Shintoism are religious, by the way), with the militarism of, say, Japan?
Bushido (loosely “the way” or “the way of the warrior”) is a mix of Buddhism, Shintoism and Ikebana and is the backbone of the samurai culture. This militaristic culture, which extols the virtues of the martial spirit and holds that the emperor is divine, is responsible for the rise of Imperial Japan and it’s spread throughout Manchuria, Mongolia, Korea, China and the Pacific.
The Chinese and Koreans are no less warlike and both cultures adhere to the same teachings and, like it or not, religious beliefs.
September 3, 2008 @ 9:56 PM
“OCR: Out of curiosity, how
“OCR: Out of curiosity, how do you square your description of Eastern teachings (and Buddhism and Shintoism are religious, by the way), with the militarism of, say, Japan?
Bushido (loosely “the way” or “the way of the warrior”) is a mix of Buddhism, Shintoism and Ikebana and is the backbone of the samurai culture. This militaristic culture, which extols the virtues of the martial spirit and holds that the emperor is divine, is responsible for the rise of Imperial Japan and it’s spread throughout Manchuria, Mongolia, Korea, China and the Pacific.
The Chinese and Koreans are no less warlike and both cultures adhere to the same teachings and, like it or not, religious beliefs.”
I don’t believe I mentioned anything about the East Asian cultures not being warlike. Just that religious fundamentalism tend to be less likely.
Shinto is intrinsically Japanese and I can’t say I’m that familiar with it. As for Bushido, that is very much an extension of Shinto with some incorporation of Buddhist thoughts.
They do this a lot in East Asia, they blend religious ideas together a lot. Thus majority of Asians may tell you they are Buddhist, but in reality they practice a mixture of traditional folk religions with a sprinkle of Buddhist ideas.
Same thing with Bushido, all Shinto with a couple of borrowed zen type meditative practices.
Bushido is not spread throughout Asia. it is intrinsically Japanese and its main influence is only in Japan. It fueled the Japanese militaristic rise. But that rise has more to do with what was in vogue back then, European style colonialism.
In general Northern Asians are a lot more warlike than South Asians. Koreans, Manchurians, and Mongolians are actually of very close relations, majority of Northern Chinese are more similar to these races than Southern Chinese. I think that pattern speaks more of culture and environment rather than religion.
September 3, 2008 @ 6:28 PM
I stumbled onto this thread
I stumbled onto this thread WAY too late, but Id just like to throw out there that my Catholic High School Biology course was taught to me by a nun, and she taught Evolution and nothing else. When asked about it later, she responded with one of the most insightful comments about religion I have ever heard. “Don’t put God in a Box, because as soon as you do you’ll be wrong and have a broken box.”
The problem is that the strictest versions of ID do just that. They tell you exactly what God did with exacting detail, but no supporting evidence other than their word on it. They are putting God in a box, a box of words written thousands of years ago, and I fully believe my evolutionary biology teaching nun was right, again.
As for the point made that since we have no idea what happened at the “big Bang” it musta been God since no one has come up with a good theory to explain it; give us time. We discovered Gravity, what, 400 years ago? DNA 50 years ago. Well get it, but just not fast enough for some people.
And there are plenty of theories about the big bang. Some talk about a constantly exploding and imploding universe. Others about blackholes or dark matter. I have even heard theories I didnt really understand (from my physiscs teacher) about dimensional schisms, the problem being that the math seemed to dictate that if we had a 4 dimension universe, 4th being time, then the other universe must either be a prime number like 7 or 5 dimensions. I was lost long ago and still am today about this one. The point being that people are working on it, we just didnt know enough to identify the problem (still dont) until very reciently.
A thousand years ago everyone who was anyone in Western Culture knew we were the center of the universe. Why dont we teach that in school anymore?
September 3, 2008 @ 11:58 PM
DWCAP wrote:As for the point
[quote=DWCAP]As for the point made that since we have no idea what happened at the “big Bang” it musta been God since no one has come up with a good theory to explain it; give us time. We discovered Gravity, what, 400 years ago? DNA 50 years ago. Well get it, but just not fast enough for some people.
And there are plenty of theories about the big bang. Some talk about a constantly exploding and imploding universe. Others about blackholes or dark matter. I have even heard theories I didnt really understand (from my physiscs teacher) about dimensional schisms, the problem being that the math seemed to dictate that if we had a 4 dimension universe, 4th being time, then the other universe must either be a prime number like 7 or 5 dimensions. I was lost long ago and still am today about this one. The point being that people are working on it, we just didnt know enough to identify the problem (still dont) until very reciently. [/quote]
Let’s hope that our educational system is adequately funded and open for the people who have these ideas and the mental horsepower to pursue and prove them to continue to have the support and opportunity to solve or at least hypothecate about them. ID is not the only threat–withdrawal of goverment funding for education and research in areas not “favored” by the creationist politicians will have the same effect as not teaching evolution et al. Just look at what was going on in NASA with the global warming debate… Have a theory that makes the administration look bad? Oooops, so sorry, you were written out of the budget!