Now you're being honest, and (dare I say it?), actually sounding human!!
Thanks. You just gave me more "food for thought". I'm not the quickest thinker in the group, so it helps when I hear things like what you just posted. :)-->
And FYI -- if anything I have ever posted seems to have been directed at you in anger (including the "knee-jerk" comment I made), I never meant it that way. I understand fully that I have many faults, have no comprehensive plan for the "Salvation" of mankind, nor do I have a full grasp on all the various implications of the many issues facing us today.
I respond to these issues, as they are brought up (like you did), and go from there. If I came across sounding like I was "bashing" you for thinking, and speaking the way you did, then I apologize for my lack of discretion, and decency. I was merely making a comment about the subject at hand, and your response to it.
No "bashing" was intended. Just my opinion, on what was said.
I was inviting constructive criticism. Heck, I was even inviting negative criticism. Whatever anybody wanted to post either positive or negative. But you ought to know that just because I invited comments, doesn't gaurentee, nor requires that the ideas/concepts given won't be challenged.
I am feeling too poorly to give the responses tonight that I would like to. After all, while you may have met a few athiests, I was raised by one. Hopefully I'll have more energy before this thread goes the way of alll threads, but I must say this now:
It is one thing to challenge your imagined opponents, it is quite another to mock them.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the wisest guy of all?
Why Garth, it is you of course!
Sorry, but that is my long term impression of you ol' bud. Everybody in this life eventually picks a belief system, whether christian, redneck, buddhist, communist, businessman, hippie, blue collar, academician or athiest. He settles into his favored cult, and surrounds himself with likeminded cultists. They congratulate and pat each other on the back and say how wise are we. Misery truly does love company.
But Garth, it seems it just isn't enough to just give your belief system answers, but you always seem to have this need to punctuate it with some mockery which you desire to be percieved as humor.
I guess the mockery works pretty good, by the time I read it, I've pretty much forgotten your rather pedestrian reply.
I can respect Unca Hairy and P-Mosh, they obviously believe what they speak and reply too. You, dear Br'er Garth, seem to set up your threads to show off your brilliance against the opposing and ignorant masses, followed by a nice little coup de grace of delicious mockery with a fine whine.
You are not as impressive as you think you are, ol' Bud.
I'm still thinking about the bit about trusting your wallet to a nun or atheist. In my life there is no one I ever have to trust my wallet to. Granted my wife prunes it occasionally and if she doesn't tell me I run the risk of having to tell the drive thru person at McDonalds to cancel my order, but I NEVER have to literally trust my wallet to anyone, so that analogy is antiquated.
But, I can think of a more appropriate analogy. Last time I was in California was 1987. I spent 4 days in LA. Nice. Went to a place called Gladstones by the Beach or something. It's a restaurant on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sunset Blvd where seagulls will eat peanuts from your fingers if you sit at the right tables. If I ever get back there I hope it's still there. ANYWAY!!!
In California at a lot of public places, you have to trust a valet to park your car. A car is not a wallet, but it's something most people value. Based on my own experience, I would trust more atheists to park my car than nuns. 95% of the time it wouldn't be an issue, but I've seen some incoherent nuns; one who worked part time in a library and one who picked me up hitchhiking and mildly terrified me. I told her I was into biblical research and she looked scared, clutched her crucifix necklace, and temporarily drove in the wrong lane. To her credit, she took me several miles helping me out and we parted amicably, but I probably get more nervous giving out my credit card number to make an internet purchase than I would trusting my car to a valet.
quote: Now I know there is no way in hell that that can be enforced upon all the people in this country, but for those who blatently use the religious test of "Does this candidate believe in (cough 'MY') God?"
Nahh, I just challenged you to think about and even address the last question in my previous post to you. But I see you didn't do that at all.
Well, it is sort of an odd question. The way you said it. Does this candidate belive in my God? - you ask...
Frick, I don't know. What are you tyring to say??
So I did not answer... your challenge... which I can not EVEN perceive as a challange.
Dude... chill.
I am not trying to word-fight... or "logic" (yours) fight...
Just responding.
After reading some other posts, it appears that you MAY (not saying you DO) have a reputation for being argumentative for the beneift of self.
So, if you want to argue notions that you do not hold... go ahead. I thought you wanted to see what else spurred in people's minds after listening to your link...
Its like the old Monty Python skit. "I want to have an argument... No you don't. (the other, retorts) ... This is merely contradiction - this is NOT an argument."
So what are you looking for, Garth... ? Agreement? An Argument?, Mere Contridiction?
You have puzzled me with your motives. Forget your topic, for now.
OK I listened... I don't know... I've had a lot of those same thoughts for quite some time... not ALL of them, but a lot of them... but then again, I believe in aliens...
First of, let me set this clear. Its not my _motivation_ to fight/be argumentitive for arguments sake or to be always RIGHT (Mirror, mirror on the wall-like satire notwithstanding). I do come across in a combative manner at times, but that doesn't make it my sole motivation (tho' I do admit that sometimes it is kinda fun, especially when arguing with the more anally-challenged ;)-->)... But then again, a simple glance in the Politicks and Tacks forum gives a not-so-subtle indication that I ain't the only one playing this game here; various players in this thread have also let fly in that arena, and we all know it. So perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to put on the 'holier than thou-I never play that game' facade, ok?
Now as to my question that I wanted answered. Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough, so here it is. In what way are the majority of Americans honoring the Constitution when they contradict it by holding their political leaders to some religious test (ie., whether or not they go to church/believe in God, whether they are for or against the churches teachings on topics like abortion, school prayer, etc.) even tho' the Constitution plainly states that no religious test shall be required of those seeking office?
Now legally, they can't 'be charged with a crime' as it were, as having these religious reasons for electing politicians to office; people can use the most ridiculous of reasons for electing someone. How about folks electing Bill Clinton to the presidency simply because he said "I can feel your pain?" --> But how is electing someone from a 'do you believe in God or not?' standpoint consistant with our belief in the Constitution and its way of government?
Garth: Our govt is of the people, remember. If PEOPLE want to make religion important they're going to do it no matter how many laws are passed. One of the main purposes of the Constitution was to protect religious freedom, not attack it. All your arguing says is "yes you can be the people but if you have religion then you're not a person anymore, you're an alien". I'm not an alien or a second class citizen no matter how much you want me to feel like one.
Ahh no, that is nowhere NEAR what I said, and I think you know it; you're just throwing barbs around.
(Once more from the top) The Constitution does indeed protect religious freedom. And it does so by keeping government out of it, by having government be neutral to the practice of it (except when the practice of said religion violates the law and/or people's rights).
That is what separation of church and state is all about! Religion, and the practice thereof is not the government's business. What part of any of this do you not understand? (Gad! Its like pulling teeth. ... from a hippo, ... using a toothpick!)
And no, the PEOPLE do not have the right, Constitutionally or otherwise, to override the 1st Amendment of "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion" no matter what their desire is to 'make religion important'. Constitutional protections of rights are not, repeat NOT, subject to majority vote. Nor should they be. Otherwise the majority could theoretically override the constitutional rights that mean the most to you.
Besides, if making religion is so important in their lives, you'd think that they'd practice it more, hmmmm? That they would actually put forth a decent effort at "What would Jesus do?" Hhmmmm, and from what I've read, Jesus didn't go around trying to elect 'godly politicians' into government. Neither did the apostles and disciples in the book of Acts. Maybe they had a better idea as to how to communicate the importance of religion. Ohh, like *living it at the greassroots level*? Seems to me that that would be a more effective means of showing people and inspiring them how important religion is, and not trying to implement religion thru government.
quote: When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Think about that quote by Benjamin Franklin for a moment. Just think about it, and what it means and entails. Was Benjamin totally out to lunch when he said that? Was he wrong, biblically or morally? Funny thing I've noticed is that what Ben said is diametrically opposed to those here who say that there is no wall between church and state, and even after I posted, more than once, that quote for all to see, NOBODY has had the brass ones to come straight out and say "Benjamin Franklin was dead wrong when he said that. This should be a nation and government under GOD!" or something clearly to that effect. Which would have shown more honesty I think. But a lot of folks look the other way and pretend that nothing like that was ever said by any of our Godly Founding Fathers.
Let me tell you something. There have been things said by our founding fathers that if said today by anybody running for president, they would have gotten less votes than Ralph Nader.
quote: That is what separation of church and state is all about! Religion, and the practice thereof is not the government's business. What part of any of this do you not understand? (Gad! Its like pulling teeth. ... from a hippo, ... using a toothpick!)
Okay, that was going over the top a bit, but it seems to me that there is this ... mental block where people keep interpreting 'separation of church and state' as tho' it is to be interpreted as 'driving religion and God out from this country', or 'you are a citizen of this country unless you are religioous, at which time you are now an alien' or some other such *blatant* distortions. Yes, I said that they are blatant.
Contrary to the popular "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" theories, the main drive for the enforcement of the separation of church and state does NOT have its roots in, nor is getting active conspiratorial support from the Evil World League of Communists, Socialists, Godless Infidels and Other Anti-American Heathen of The Anti-Christ (E.W.L.C.S.G.I. & O.A.A.H.T.A.C ?) It is largely supported by those who do not see religion as the proper place of government involvement, BOTH right wing and left. Religious and secular.
The vast majority of who love America and freedom just as much as you do.
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
quote:Originally posted by Sudo:
Bob,
ReL__"Back to Harvey, he said he doesn't believe in gods or goddesses or the afterlife. Yet he prays, because of the known scientific "laws" and humanistic principals....In my book, if you're praying, your believing in something, no matter how convoluted you reason it out."__
I have to agree with you! That didn't make any sense to me either. But still.. if that's what _HE_ feels comfortable with, that's OK with me. I bow my head for instance while people are praying. It's showing respect.
sudo
Showing respect is nodding your regard for other peoples humanity and customs. My dad always taught me to respect others. Whupped my butt if I didn't.
To this day I enjoy meeting folks and learning of their cultures.
Harvey is a peculiar duck all right, praying is believing even if it is to yourself. Most people worship the dollar, personal comfort, and sex from what I've seen lately, and not necessarily in that order either. :)-->
Do you still do the computer work for that church? I still remember the site you posted once, it's a very well thought out and beautful church. You say you bow your head, do you attend services, or is that when a prayer happens near you?
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
quote:Originally posted by George Aar:
Oh, and BTW,
If the ACLU wasn't around, who would be out there defending The Bill of Rights? The government? The legal system? The church?
For all their faults and excesses (which there may be), I'm glad somebody cares enough about the constitution to do something to make sure it's enforced.
You may fire at will...
You may fire at will...
:D--> :D--> :D-->
I only do that to folks who are looking for a fight. ;)-->
If you ask a halfway honest question, I'll do my best to give a halfassed honest answer. :D-->
When I was young, growing up in rural Indiana, the government, the legal system, and the church, all would gang up to defend The Bill of Rights. Old codgers would argue politics so vehemently they'd turn purple and and you'd swear they'd come to blows any second. But when they were done, they'd agree they disagreed, and swear to defend to the death each other's right to their opinion. That was the old america.
Sadly it is no longer that way, everyone is so polarized it is their way or the highway and.. die M-F'er.
I'm not intirely against the ACLU, they do a lot of good work for folks who need certain help, and who often can't afford it too. A wayfer friend of mine was with the ACLU back in the '70s. Many ACLU lawyers really want to help people. At least they did back then.
I don't follow the ACLU these days but a couple of my friends who do, have noted to me they in no wise defend all the bill of rights. They have never protected the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, and there are a couple more they are notably infrequent on. I think the 4th and 10th but don't quote me on it.
Trouble is there is a group within them who want to push things well past the reasonable to the ridiculous and the sublime. It is a good thing to make sure a church and state don't get in cahoots together, it is not a bad thing to prevent a state from wrapping itself in God's cloak, but it is rather absurd to attempt to totally seperate god from government.
It is not in the nature or traditions, or the deep soul of most people to go to such extremes. Most people have a sense of god kinship and they feel they are being pushed too far. There is a backlash coming.
A headline I saw today is proclaiming Micheal Moore and the Hollywood and media elites, by pushing so hard against Bush and for Kerry, actually helped Bush get elected. The source was liberal. Here are some recent ACLU directed headlines:
If you read the articles, you would see they are about minor things: A beloved cross in a park. The Declaration of Independence mentions God so you can't show it in class. Boy Scouts on a military base. Whether Christmas things are OK or not in schools.
Little things, but deeply embeded in the american heritage and soul. Many americans are fed up over the continued attacks on their traditions and values and are saying enough is enough.
The ACLU needs to realize they've done quite a bit of what they wanted to accomplish. Thru fear of ACLU reprisal, government employees make it a religion to be antichrist in government today. But they aren't satisfied, they keep looking for more and smaller points to tackle, offending more and more people to please a few and fewer, or even one. The cross in the park for example, one man is offended at it, and a whole city and area are furious at him and signing all sorts of petitions against it's removal.
It would be wise of the ACLU to back off of the extremeism or the backlash will come after them like an avalance down the slopes of Mt. Everest. Consider those ten or so states with the gay marriage issues. They all voted no by margins of 67% to 90% against them. Even nice little guaranteed liberal blue states like my Michigan.
George, you and I both love the orient. (I spent one year in Thailand and two years in Okinawa in the early '70s.) I love and respect the people, the culture, and had a long time interest in their religions. If the ACLU were in Japan or Thailand right now, what do you think they would be doing all to the public shrines, buddhas, prayer wheels and the like?
How would that affect their heritage, traditions and culture. How would the locals react to them and their court backed preachy ways?
Many americans are so fed up with the smug extremism of the one way, that they are being made extremists the other way.
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
quote:Originally posted by George Aar:
Dabob,
I have a little different take on the whole Communist/religion thingy than Garth.
I'm quite sure that Communism _did_ replace religion in the Soviet Union and China. And that National Socialism performed the same function in Germany. It _was_ their religion. The state became the provider for all of life's needs, just as ALMIGHTY GOD had earlier. They changed the script a little, but the bottom line remained the same "Pay your obeisance to God, or suffer the consequences". They just had a little different form of theology. The coersion and brutality remained pretty regular for religious zealotry, albeit horrendously more efficient, due to modern technology.
Anytime "faith" trumps reason, I get jumpy. Whether it's to an invisible Holy Thunderer, or to a benevolent, vague, but all powerful "State", rest assured, trouble is brewing.
And just "for fun" (ala Roy), here's a snippet from Richard Dawkins to chew on:
I am pretty much in agreement with you, the states became the religions. The communists outlawed, persecuted, imprisoned and "liquidated" people from all religions under their control, and Marxist/Leninist communism was proclaimed the state and the religion.
The nazis did the same thing with national socialism. They also had a peculiar form of superhuman ancester worship many of them played with. A nice little mystical wetdream of Vikings, voluptuous Valkyries, and Valhalla for the slain heros to go to.
Between them they have killed maybe 120 to 150 million people.
Mr. Aar said...
Anytime "faith" trumps reason, I get jumpy. Whether it's to an invisible Holy Thunderer, or to a benevolent, vague, but all powerful "State", rest assured, trouble is brewing.
Somewhere, there is a balance of reason, state, faith and whatever else figures into the equation. I know, I've swung past the center so damn many times. ;)-->
I read your link to the humanist scientist., Richard Dawkins, thanks, it was an enjoyable read. Didn' t VP once say something to the effect of the supreme court had declared humanism to be a religion? I remembered that when I saw "Published in the Humanist" So be careful ol' boy, I have it on VP's authority you're reading a religious document. :D-->
From the early '60s junior high on, I have loved reading Science Digest and similiar science mags. The universe is a fascinating place and when science works it correctly, there are amazingly awesome things to be learned. One of the things I liked about TWI was that in the PFAL sections on Guinness chapters 1 and 2 where they...Just kidding, Genesis 1 and 2 where you could blend bible and science without contradiction.
I was able to enjoy both the Bible and Science Digest, both Orientalisms of the Bible and Discovery Magazine.
Ol'DocVP said, I think in PFAL that a true scientist could not beleive in god. Spirit could not be measured, so you go by by the five senses and rational reasoning. Mr. Dawkins fits this to a "T." The first and last parts of his paper not only make that point, but screams in his frustration that his science is not a faith.
Dawkins says...
and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people.
Reading his stuff, he really is a zealous bigot, obviously as enthused of his science as we were of "the word" in our time. Whether he likes it or not, science really is his faith. I don't have a problem with it, I would encourage him to enjoy it to the utmost, have a ball. He himself though doesn't like the association of the terminology.
I enjoyed his attempts at describing the awe of science:
Dawkins said...
Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics.
The best of words, however well strung together and inspired, can seem dreadfully lacking to the greatness of what you have seen with your own eyes and felt in your own heart. As I read Dawkins words above, I pictured him in his head, seeing a magical mind picture of a full color Hubble telescope image of the Horsehead Nebula or the heavenly glowing gasses at the center of a nearby galaxy.
You're entranced and words just aren't enough. The love of science in me, mindmelds with the love of science in him, and for a moment, we are of one soul.
Unfortunately, shortly after that:
Dawkins said...
I do feel very strongly about the way children are brought up...
Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse....
There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?
Here Mr. Dawkins is showing major bigotry and socialist mindset, but he goes farther. He talks of forcing evolution into religious education classes
Dawkins said...
The children would look at the spellbinding wonders of the living kingdoms and would consider Darwinism alongside the creationist alternatives and make up their own minds.
What worries me is not the question of equal time but that, as far as I can see, children in the United Kingdom and the United States are essentially given no time with evolution yet are taught creationism (whether at school, in church, or at home).
Mr. Dawkins is looking at a british view of forcing darwinism into apparently country wide religious classes. In the US, some school may have optional religious classes available. But his point is he doesn't think enough evolution is taught in school so force more on, even in special religious classes.
(That's too close to Orwell's 1984 think/speak to me. If you are a democrat and Clinton is in, the doublespeak may be just fine with you, but what happens when Bush comes in with his own version of doublespeak? It's funy that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, but many look on it as a guidebook.)
Mr. Dawkins scares me here, in the great middle section of the paper, he slams on religion, he slams on parents, he slams on educators, and on the children and calls it mental child abuse. He clearly wants rip kids away from all the vile bad stuff and stuff their little noggins with what he decides is truth.
Doesn't that chill you? Send a chill up your spine?
It's pure socialist elitism.
He has all the answers.
Your mind is ruined, but he can save your children.
Sorry, buddy, I ain't going to church with you.
Something I have seen in little snippets here and there is more scientists claiming the grand marvels of science they are discovering are helping them to see the infinite mind of God as the great architect of the universe. More of our scientists are willing to admit they believe in God.
For the kids that Mr. Dawkins is so concerned about. not having the "proper indoctrination"? In my own youth, my friends growing up with me, and the kids I've known since then, both in and out of TWI. They have a good basic understanding but casual believing attitude of their parents religion. By high school, they have a good basic understanding of evolution with a casual believing attitude toward it too.
And anyone who goes to college gets a strong belief of Darwinism, thinks socialism will cure all the world's ills, and thinks that homosexuals are ok...
At least until I get a little gay and make a pass at him,
Then he jumps back 25 feet...
and shivers while turning green.
:D--> :D--> :D-->
(Sorry Trefor) ;)-->
Mr. Dawkins has his good points but is an elitist, socialist, zealot, bigot.
Both science and the Bible are wonderful, and can work together.
Our kids are doing just fine in spite of everything.
In what way is the government sponsorship of a group that openly discriminates against a group of people (Boy Scouts against atheists in this case) JUST a small and insignificant matter? Hmmmm, what if that same government sponsored, in like matter, a group that discriminated against Christians? Would it be a small and insignificant matter then?
I doubt it.
But then again, atheists are a small and unpopular enough group to beat up on without any real threat of retaliation now, isn't it?
Isn't that the way of gutless bullies? Hhmmm??
And what do you think of ol' Benjamin Franklin's quote? I'd really like to hear your take on that. And I even will pomise not to 'rip you one' in response, as I'll let your response speak for itself. ;)-->
quote: How would that affect their heritage, traditions and culture.
A common refrain in treating these items as tho' they were the basis for law in this country. .... Which they are NOT. Last time I checked, the Constitution is the law of the land, not heritage, traditions, and culture, ALL of which change over time. (Why, it used to be according to heritage, tradition, and culture for blacks and women to be denied the right to vote. But the principles of the Constitution, and amendments that went according to the spirit of the document, that changed all that :)-->)
And please refrain from flawed and desperate straw man arguments equating atheism/humanism with socialism/communism. There are so many flaws in that argument, even with previous references to Nietche, materialism, etc. that it isn't even funny.
And I don't care WHAT VPW said. You should know enough that his credibility is .... around here. ;)-->
quote: and thinks that homosexuals are ok...At least until I get a little gay and make a pass at him,
Then he jumps back 25 feet...and shivers while turning green.
Hey, thats about my kinda reaction too, when a gay man would try to approach me in a sexual way. .... So-o, in what way should that mean, in order to be honest and true, that I have to think that homosexual is NOT ok? Or to be given equal protection under the law? I'm not black or Jewish either, and I dislike rap and eat unkosher foods. So-o does that mean that I need to think that being Jewish or black is un-ok too?
:D--> If being a pain in the a$$ is an art form, then I'm Michelangelo. ;)-->
Now I'm going to show you folks an example (such as you most likely have seen before no doubt), of an extreme coming from the other (separation of church and state) side that I don't agree with and that goes too far. Check out this account from the L. A. school system:
Now here is a case where they ban, in ALL educational instances, any references to God, be they historical, religious, literary, etc., including the Declaration of Independence. This goes well beyond the valid point against government specifically endorsing and propagating a religion in the public schools. This totally bans any mention or illustration of them outright. And in this the school errs grieviously.
For one thing, they err because this *still* violates the 1st Amendment, at least potentially; specifically the free exercise clause, "... nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof", as well as prohibits the historical instruction of the role religion played back in those days. A form of instruction that violates NO one's 1st Amendment rights. Neither does the instruction of the Bible as far as an instrument of literature.
But sometimes (many times I daresay) folks read accounts like these and mindlessly presume that that's how all the separation of church and state advocates operate. Which is about as stupid as saying that all conservatives are a bunch of bigots.
And its mindless morons such as the pointy-haired school administrators as these that make it all the more rough for separation of church and state, so you have a point about the backlash there.
...what did I miss? I don't remember Harvey saying he was an atheist, just that he didn't believe in gods and godesses... that he had his own thing and didn't mind others having their own thing as long as they allowed him to have his views... or has the great satan clouded mine eyeballs???
I don't think I'm quite up to the level of discourse you're willing to endure, but here's my 2 cents.
Re:"Everybody in this life eventually picks a belief system, whether christian, redneck, buddhist, communist, businessman, hippie, blue collar, academician or athiest. He settles into his favored cult, and surrounds himself with likeminded cultists. They congratulate and pat each other on the back and say how wise are we."
Sorry, but this is just, well, wrong. Personally (and I think I'm part of "everybody") don't surround myself with likeminded cultists. Hell, even my wife is still a Christian. My friends and associates? For the most part I don't even know their religious leanings. Though I do business with one lady who is not just a "believer" but goes on to accept just about any absurd notion. Homeopathy, Aromatherapy, Feng Shui, every claptrap nonsensical B.S. that comes her way. She believes it all. I still like her, still spend time with her, even enjoy her company. I just don't share her credulity. Maybe the statement is more reflective of YOUR mindset, hmmm?
And please, let go of the notion of "science" being a religion. Science is the antithesis of religion. Religion requires you to accept unsupported beliefs. Science requires you to question EVERYTHING (if you're going to do it properly, anyway). Science is about learning. Religion is about knowing. And if I quit
believing in science, it doesn't go away.
You got a problem with somebody's stance in science? Call him on it. You just better have some data to back up your call. You gotta problem with someone's religious stance? Tough luck. That's what he believes and he's not required to prove anything to you (afterall, it's between him and God, right?)
And you wanna have a game of "dueling reference points for truth"? You ask God for revelation about what to do if the sky goes dark, and I'll go to a astronomy table and tell you when the next solar eclipse will occur, how long it will last, and from what areas of the earth it will be seen as total or partial.
You don't accept science on faith. It either presents a plausible case based on facts, or it doesn't. No wondering, praying, yearning, or self-deprecation required.
Oh, and re: the ACLU and the Orient. Why the hell would they care about the temples or prayerwheels or any of the rest? Despite what some may claim, they aren't out to eliminate religion, just to defend The Bill of Rights and our quaranteed civil liberties under OUR constitution. And near as I can tell, our Bill of Rights doesn't apply outside of our borders anyway.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
16
8
Popular Days
Nov 24
16
Nov 22
13
Nov 21
9
Nov 23
8
Top Posters In This Topic
dabobbada 8 posts
George Aar 6 posts
GarthP2000 16 posts
johniam 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 24 2004
16 posts
Nov 22 2004
13 posts
Nov 21 2004
9 posts
Nov 23 2004
8 posts
dmiller
Garth --
Now you're being honest, and (dare I say it?), actually sounding human!!
Thanks. You just gave me more "food for thought". I'm not the quickest thinker in the group, so it helps when I hear things like what you just posted.
:)-->
And FYI -- if anything I have ever posted seems to have been directed at you in anger (including the "knee-jerk" comment I made), I never meant it that way. I understand fully that I have many faults, have no comprehensive plan for the "Salvation" of mankind, nor do I have a full grasp on all the various implications of the many issues facing us today.
I respond to these issues, as they are brought up (like you did), and go from there. If I came across sounding like I was "bashing" you for thinking, and speaking the way you did, then I apologize for my lack of discretion, and decency. I was merely making a comment about the subject at hand, and your response to it.
No "bashing" was intended. Just my opinion, on what was said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yea -- I think.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
I am feeling too poorly to give the responses tonight that I would like to. After all, while you may have met a few athiests, I was raised by one. Hopefully I'll have more energy before this thread goes the way of alll threads, but I must say this now:
It is one thing to challenge your imagined opponents, it is quite another to mock them.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the wisest guy of all?
Why Garth, it is you of course!
Sorry, but that is my long term impression of you ol' bud. Everybody in this life eventually picks a belief system, whether christian, redneck, buddhist, communist, businessman, hippie, blue collar, academician or athiest. He settles into his favored cult, and surrounds himself with likeminded cultists. They congratulate and pat each other on the back and say how wise are we. Misery truly does love company.
But Garth, it seems it just isn't enough to just give your belief system answers, but you always seem to have this need to punctuate it with some mockery which you desire to be percieved as humor.
I guess the mockery works pretty good, by the time I read it, I've pretty much forgotten your rather pedestrian reply.
I can respect Unca Hairy and P-Mosh, they obviously believe what they speak and reply too. You, dear Br'er Garth, seem to set up your threads to show off your brilliance against the opposing and ignorant masses, followed by a nice little coup de grace of delicious mockery with a fine whine.
You are not as impressive as you think you are, ol' Bud.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I'm still thinking about the bit about trusting your wallet to a nun or atheist. In my life there is no one I ever have to trust my wallet to. Granted my wife prunes it occasionally and if she doesn't tell me I run the risk of having to tell the drive thru person at McDonalds to cancel my order, but I NEVER have to literally trust my wallet to anyone, so that analogy is antiquated.
But, I can think of a more appropriate analogy. Last time I was in California was 1987. I spent 4 days in LA. Nice. Went to a place called Gladstones by the Beach or something. It's a restaurant on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sunset Blvd where seagulls will eat peanuts from your fingers if you sit at the right tables. If I ever get back there I hope it's still there. ANYWAY!!!
In California at a lot of public places, you have to trust a valet to park your car. A car is not a wallet, but it's something most people value. Based on my own experience, I would trust more atheists to park my car than nuns. 95% of the time it wouldn't be an issue, but I've seen some incoherent nuns; one who worked part time in a library and one who picked me up hitchhiking and mildly terrified me. I told her I was into biblical research and she looked scared, clutched her crucifix necklace, and temporarily drove in the wrong lane. To her credit, she took me several miles helping me out and we parted amicably, but I probably get more nervous giving out my credit card number to make an internet purchase than I would trusting my car to a valet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you drawing a line in the sand (of sorts) effectively trying to pit yourself against me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it is sort of an odd question. The way you said it. Does this candidate belive in my God? - you ask...
Frick, I don't know. What are you tyring to say??
So I did not answer... your challenge... which I can not EVEN perceive as a challange.
Dude... chill.
I am not trying to word-fight... or "logic" (yours) fight...
Just responding.
After reading some other posts, it appears that you MAY (not saying you DO) have a reputation for being argumentative for the beneift of self.
So, if you want to argue notions that you do not hold... go ahead. I thought you wanted to see what else spurred in people's minds after listening to your link...
Its like the old Monty Python skit. "I want to have an argument... No you don't. (the other, retorts) ... This is merely contradiction - this is NOT an argument."
So what are you looking for, Garth... ? Agreement? An Argument?, Mere Contridiction?
You have puzzled me with your motives. Forget your topic, for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OK I listened... I don't know... I've had a lot of those same thoughts for quite some time... not ALL of them, but a lot of them... but then again, I believe in aliens...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Too Gray Now (and Dabobbada),
First of, let me set this clear. Its not my _motivation_ to fight/be argumentitive for arguments sake or to be always RIGHT (Mirror, mirror on the wall-like satire notwithstanding). I do come across in a combative manner at times, but that doesn't make it my sole motivation (tho' I do admit that sometimes it is kinda fun, especially when arguing with the more anally-challenged
;)-->)... But then again, a simple glance in the Politicks and Tacks forum gives a not-so-subtle indication that I ain't the only one playing this game here; various players in this thread have also let fly in that arena, and we all know it. So perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to put on the 'holier than thou-I never play that game' facade, ok?
Now as to my question that I wanted answered. Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough, so here it is. In what way are the majority of Americans honoring the Constitution when they contradict it by holding their political leaders to some religious test (ie., whether or not they go to church/believe in God, whether they are for or against the churches teachings on topics like abortion, school prayer, etc.) even tho' the Constitution plainly states that no religious test shall be required of those seeking office?
Now legally, they can't 'be charged with a crime' as it were, as having these religious reasons for electing politicians to office; people can use the most ridiculous of reasons for electing someone. How about folks electing Bill Clinton to the presidency simply because he said "I can feel your pain?"
--> But how is electing someone from a 'do you believe in God or not?' standpoint consistant with our belief in the Constitution and its way of government?
THAT was my point behind that question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth: Our govt is of the people, remember. If PEOPLE want to make religion important they're going to do it no matter how many laws are passed. One of the main purposes of the Constitution was to protect religious freedom, not attack it. All your arguing says is "yes you can be the people but if you have religion then you're not a person anymore, you're an alien". I'm not an alien or a second class citizen no matter how much you want me to feel like one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Johniam,
Ahh no, that is nowhere NEAR what I said, and I think you know it; you're just throwing barbs around.
(Once more from the top) The Constitution does indeed protect religious freedom. And it does so by keeping government out of it, by having government be neutral to the practice of it (except when the practice of said religion violates the law and/or people's rights).
That is what separation of church and state is all about! Religion, and the practice thereof is not the government's business. What part of any of this do you not understand? (Gad! Its like pulling teeth. ... from a hippo, ... using a toothpick!)
And no, the PEOPLE do not have the right, Constitutionally or otherwise, to override the 1st Amendment of "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion" no matter what their desire is to 'make religion important'. Constitutional protections of rights are not, repeat NOT, subject to majority vote. Nor should they be. Otherwise the majority could theoretically override the constitutional rights that mean the most to you.
Besides, if making religion is so important in their lives, you'd think that they'd practice it more, hmmmm? That they would actually put forth a decent effort at "What would Jesus do?" Hhmmmm, and from what I've read, Jesus didn't go around trying to elect 'godly politicians' into government. Neither did the apostles and disciples in the book of Acts. Maybe they had a better idea as to how to communicate the importance of religion. Ohh, like *living it at the greassroots level*? Seems to me that that would be a more effective means of showing people and inspiring them how important religion is, and not trying to implement religion thru government.
Think about that quote by Benjamin Franklin for a moment. Just think about it, and what it means and entails. Was Benjamin totally out to lunch when he said that? Was he wrong, biblically or morally? Funny thing I've noticed is that what Ben said is diametrically opposed to those here who say that there is no wall between church and state, and even after I posted, more than once, that quote for all to see, NOBODY has had the brass ones to come straight out and say "Benjamin Franklin was dead wrong when he said that. This should be a nation and government under GOD!" or something clearly to that effect. Which would have shown more honesty I think. But a lot of folks look the other way and pretend that nothing like that was ever said by any of our Godly Founding Fathers.
Let me tell you something. There have been things said by our founding fathers that if said today by anybody running for president, they would have gotten less votes than Ralph Nader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Okay, that was going over the top a bit, but it seems to me that there is this ... mental block where people keep interpreting 'separation of church and state' as tho' it is to be interpreted as 'driving religion and God out from this country', or 'you are a citizen of this country unless you are religioous, at which time you are now an alien' or some other such *blatant* distortions. Yes, I said that they are blatant.
Contrary to the popular "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" theories, the main drive for the enforcement of the separation of church and state does NOT have its roots in, nor is getting active conspiratorial support from the Evil World League of Communists, Socialists, Godless Infidels and Other Anti-American Heathen of The Anti-Christ (E.W.L.C.S.G.I. & O.A.A.H.T.A.C ?) It is largely supported by those who do not see religion as the proper place of government involvement, BOTH right wing and left. Religious and secular.
The vast majority of who love America and freedom just as much as you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
Showing respect is nodding your regard for other peoples humanity and customs. My dad always taught me to respect others. Whupped my butt if I didn't.
To this day I enjoy meeting folks and learning of their cultures.
Harvey is a peculiar duck all right, praying is believing even if it is to yourself. Most people worship the dollar, personal comfort, and sex from what I've seen lately, and not necessarily in that order either.
:)-->
Do you still do the computer work for that church? I still remember the site you posted once, it's a very well thought out and beautful church. You say you bow your head, do you attend services, or is that when a prayer happens near you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
Hey Garth,
How's the mutual admiration society today?
:D-->
Got an energy spell and been replying to posts all night. (sigh! I wish I had more of them.)
I'm kinda posting in an order so I'll have some fun for you too in a while if I keep 'er up.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
You may fire at will...
I only do that to folks who are looking for a fight.
;)-->
If you ask a halfway honest question, I'll do my best to give a halfassed honest answer.
:D-->
When I was young, growing up in rural Indiana, the government, the legal system, and the church, all would gang up to defend The Bill of Rights. Old codgers would argue politics so vehemently they'd turn purple and and you'd swear they'd come to blows any second. But when they were done, they'd agree they disagreed, and swear to defend to the death each other's right to their opinion. That was the old america.
Sadly it is no longer that way, everyone is so polarized it is their way or the highway and.. die M-F'er.
I'm not intirely against the ACLU, they do a lot of good work for folks who need certain help, and who often can't afford it too. A wayfer friend of mine was with the ACLU back in the '70s. Many ACLU lawyers really want to help people. At least they did back then.
I don't follow the ACLU these days but a couple of my friends who do, have noted to me they in no wise defend all the bill of rights. They have never protected the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, and there are a couple more they are notably infrequent on. I think the 4th and 10th but don't quote me on it.
Trouble is there is a group within them who want to push things well past the reasonable to the ridiculous and the sublime. It is a good thing to make sure a church and state don't get in cahoots together, it is not a bad thing to prevent a state from wrapping itself in God's cloak, but it is rather absurd to attempt to totally seperate god from government.
It is not in the nature or traditions, or the deep soul of most people to go to such extremes. Most people have a sense of god kinship and they feel they are being pushed too far. There is a backlash coming.
A headline I saw today is proclaiming Micheal Moore and the Hollywood and media elites, by pushing so hard against Bush and for Kerry, actually helped Bush get elected. The source was liberal. Here are some recent ACLU directed headlines:
Florida senator swears he'll help Scouts
TheArticle
The American Legion blasts Pentagon for giving in to ACLU
TheArticle
Congress gets into ACLU cross brouhaha
TheArticle
700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU
TheArticle
Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?
TheArticle
If you read the articles, you would see they are about minor things: A beloved cross in a park. The Declaration of Independence mentions God so you can't show it in class. Boy Scouts on a military base. Whether Christmas things are OK or not in schools.
Little things, but deeply embeded in the american heritage and soul. Many americans are fed up over the continued attacks on their traditions and values and are saying enough is enough.
The ACLU needs to realize they've done quite a bit of what they wanted to accomplish. Thru fear of ACLU reprisal, government employees make it a religion to be antichrist in government today. But they aren't satisfied, they keep looking for more and smaller points to tackle, offending more and more people to please a few and fewer, or even one. The cross in the park for example, one man is offended at it, and a whole city and area are furious at him and signing all sorts of petitions against it's removal.
It would be wise of the ACLU to back off of the extremeism or the backlash will come after them like an avalance down the slopes of Mt. Everest. Consider those ten or so states with the gay marriage issues. They all voted no by margins of 67% to 90% against them. Even nice little guaranteed liberal blue states like my Michigan.
George, you and I both love the orient. (I spent one year in Thailand and two years in Okinawa in the early '70s.) I love and respect the people, the culture, and had a long time interest in their religions. If the ACLU were in Japan or Thailand right now, what do you think they would be doing all to the public shrines, buddhas, prayer wheels and the like?
How would that affect their heritage, traditions and culture. How would the locals react to them and their court backed preachy ways?
Many americans are so fed up with the smug extremism of the one way, that they are being made extremists the other way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
I'll be making my replies in boldtype to differentiate them from the person being quoted.
George Aar,
I am pretty much in agreement with you, the states became the religions. The communists outlawed, persecuted, imprisoned and "liquidated" people from all religions under their control, and Marxist/Leninist communism was proclaimed the state and the religion.
The nazis did the same thing with national socialism. They also had a peculiar form of superhuman ancester worship many of them played with. A nice little mystical wetdream of Vikings, voluptuous Valkyries, and Valhalla for the slain heros to go to.
Between them they have killed maybe 120 to 150 million people.
Mr. Aar said...
Anytime "faith" trumps reason, I get jumpy. Whether it's to an invisible Holy Thunderer, or to a benevolent, vague, but all powerful "State", rest assured, trouble is brewing.
Somewhere, there is a balance of reason, state, faith and whatever else figures into the equation. I know, I've swung past the center so damn many times.
;)-->
I read your link to the humanist scientist., Richard Dawkins, thanks, it was an enjoyable read. Didn' t VP once say something to the effect of the supreme court had declared humanism to be a religion? I remembered that when I saw "Published in the Humanist" So be careful ol' boy, I have it on VP's authority you're reading a religious document.
:D-->
From the early '60s junior high on, I have loved reading Science Digest and similiar science mags. The universe is a fascinating place and when science works it correctly, there are amazingly awesome things to be learned. One of the things I liked about TWI was that in the PFAL sections on Guinness chapters 1 and 2 where they...Just kidding, Genesis 1 and 2 where you could blend bible and science without contradiction.
I was able to enjoy both the Bible and Science Digest, both Orientalisms of the Bible and Discovery Magazine.
Ol'DocVP said, I think in PFAL that a true scientist could not beleive in god. Spirit could not be measured, so you go by by the five senses and rational reasoning. Mr. Dawkins fits this to a "T." The first and last parts of his paper not only make that point, but screams in his frustration that his science is not a faith.
Dawkins says...
and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people.
Reading his stuff, he really is a zealous bigot, obviously as enthused of his science as we were of "the word" in our time. Whether he likes it or not, science really is his faith. I don't have a problem with it, I would encourage him to enjoy it to the utmost, have a ball. He himself though doesn't like the association of the terminology.
I enjoyed his attempts at describing the awe of science:
Dawkins said...
Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics.
The best of words, however well strung together and inspired, can seem dreadfully lacking to the greatness of what you have seen with your own eyes and felt in your own heart. As I read Dawkins words above, I pictured him in his head, seeing a magical mind picture of a full color Hubble telescope image of the Horsehead Nebula or the heavenly glowing gasses at the center of a nearby galaxy.
You're entranced and words just aren't enough. The love of science in me, mindmelds with the love of science in him, and for a moment, we are of one soul.
Unfortunately, shortly after that:
Dawkins said...
I do feel very strongly about the way children are brought up...
Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse....
There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?
Here Mr. Dawkins is showing major bigotry and socialist mindset, but he goes farther. He talks of forcing evolution into religious education classes
Dawkins said...
The children would look at the spellbinding wonders of the living kingdoms and would consider Darwinism alongside the creationist alternatives and make up their own minds.
What worries me is not the question of equal time but that, as far as I can see, children in the United Kingdom and the United States are essentially given no time with evolution yet are taught creationism (whether at school, in church, or at home).
Mr. Dawkins is looking at a british view of forcing darwinism into apparently country wide religious classes. In the US, some school may have optional religious classes available. But his point is he doesn't think enough evolution is taught in school so force more on, even in special religious classes.
(That's too close to Orwell's 1984 think/speak to me. If you are a democrat and Clinton is in, the doublespeak may be just fine with you, but what happens when Bush comes in with his own version of doublespeak? It's funy that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, but many look on it as a guidebook.)
Mr. Dawkins scares me here, in the great middle section of the paper, he slams on religion, he slams on parents, he slams on educators, and on the children and calls it mental child abuse. He clearly wants rip kids away from all the vile bad stuff and stuff their little noggins with what he decides is truth.
Doesn't that chill you? Send a chill up your spine?
It's pure socialist elitism.
He has all the answers.
Your mind is ruined, but he can save your children.
Sorry, buddy, I ain't going to church with you.
Something I have seen in little snippets here and there is more scientists claiming the grand marvels of science they are discovering are helping them to see the infinite mind of God as the great architect of the universe. More of our scientists are willing to admit they believe in God.
For the kids that Mr. Dawkins is so concerned about. not having the "proper indoctrination"? In my own youth, my friends growing up with me, and the kids I've known since then, both in and out of TWI. They have a good basic understanding but casual believing attitude of their parents religion. By high school, they have a good basic understanding of evolution with a casual believing attitude toward it too.
And anyone who goes to college gets a strong belief of Darwinism, thinks socialism will cure all the world's ills, and thinks that homosexuals are ok...
At least until I get a little gay and make a pass at him,
Then he jumps back 25 feet...
and shivers while turning green.
(Sorry Trefor)
;)-->
Mr. Dawkins has his good points but is an elitist, socialist, zealot, bigot.
Both science and the Bible are wonderful, and can work together.
Our kids are doing just fine in spite of everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A question for THE Prophet, if I may.
:D-->
In what way is the government sponsorship of a group that openly discriminates against a group of people (Boy Scouts against atheists in this case) JUST a small and insignificant matter? Hmmmm, what if that same government sponsored, in like matter, a group that discriminated against Christians? Would it be a small and insignificant matter then?
I doubt it.
But then again, atheists are a small and unpopular enough group to beat up on without any real threat of retaliation now, isn't it?
Isn't that the way of gutless bullies? Hhmmm??
And what do you think of ol' Benjamin Franklin's quote? I'd really like to hear your take on that. And I even will pomise not to 'rip you one' in response, as I'll let your response speak for itself.
;)-->
A common refrain in treating these items as tho' they were the basis for law in this country. .... Which they are NOT. Last time I checked, the Constitution is the law of the land, not heritage, traditions, and culture, ALL of which change over time. (Why, it used to be according to heritage, tradition, and culture for blacks and women to be denied the right to vote. But the principles of the Constitution, and amendments that went according to the spirit of the document, that changed all that
:)-->)
And please refrain from flawed and desperate straw man arguments equating atheism/humanism with socialism/communism. There are so many flaws in that argument, even with previous references to Nietche, materialism, etc. that it isn't even funny.
And I don't care WHAT VPW said. You should know enough that his credibility is .... around here.
;)-->
Hey, thats about my kinda reaction too, when a gay man would try to approach me in a sexual way. .... So-o, in what way should that mean, in order to be honest and true, that I have to think that homosexual is NOT ok? Or to be given equal protection under the law? I'm not black or Jewish either, and I dislike rap and eat unkosher foods. So-o does that mean that I need to think that being Jewish or black is un-ok too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now I'm going to show you folks an example (such as you most likely have seen before no doubt), of an extreme coming from the other (separation of church and state) side that I don't agree with and that goes too far. Check out this account from the L. A. school system:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/
Now here is a case where they ban, in ALL educational instances, any references to God, be they historical, religious, literary, etc., including the Declaration of Independence.
This goes well beyond the valid point against government specifically endorsing and propagating a religion in the public schools. This totally bans any mention or illustration of them outright. And in this the school errs grieviously.
For one thing, they err because this *still* violates the 1st Amendment, at least potentially; specifically the free exercise clause, "... nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof", as well as prohibits the historical instruction of the role religion played back in those days. A form of instruction that violates NO one's 1st Amendment rights. Neither does the instruction of the Bible as far as an instrument of literature.
But sometimes (many times I daresay) folks read accounts like these and mindlessly presume that that's how all the separation of church and state advocates operate. Which is about as stupid as saying that all conservatives are a bunch of bigots.
And its mindless morons such as the pointy-haired school administrators as these that make it all the more rough for separation of church and state, so you have a point about the backlash there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
...what did I miss? I don't remember Harvey saying he was an atheist, just that he didn't believe in gods and godesses... that he had his own thing and didn't mind others having their own thing as long as they allowed him to have his views... or has the great satan clouded mine eyeballs???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Tom,
Nahh, Harvey din't really say he was an atheist, or maybe he did, I dunno.
I do know this: Of all the neat stuff he talked about, not ONCE did he mention *ANYTHING* about sno-cones.
Not once!
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah... but he didn't say I couldn't believe in them!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Dabob,
I don't think I'm quite up to the level of discourse you're willing to endure, but here's my 2 cents.
Re:"Everybody in this life eventually picks a belief system, whether christian, redneck, buddhist, communist, businessman, hippie, blue collar, academician or athiest. He settles into his favored cult, and surrounds himself with likeminded cultists. They congratulate and pat each other on the back and say how wise are we."
Sorry, but this is just, well, wrong. Personally (and I think I'm part of "everybody") don't surround myself with likeminded cultists. Hell, even my wife is still a Christian. My friends and associates? For the most part I don't even know their religious leanings. Though I do business with one lady who is not just a "believer" but goes on to accept just about any absurd notion. Homeopathy, Aromatherapy, Feng Shui, every claptrap nonsensical B.S. that comes her way. She believes it all. I still like her, still spend time with her, even enjoy her company. I just don't share her credulity. Maybe the statement is more reflective of YOUR mindset, hmmm?
And please, let go of the notion of "science" being a religion. Science is the antithesis of religion. Religion requires you to accept unsupported beliefs. Science requires you to question EVERYTHING (if you're going to do it properly, anyway). Science is about learning. Religion is about knowing. And if I quit
believing in science, it doesn't go away.
You got a problem with somebody's stance in science? Call him on it. You just better have some data to back up your call. You gotta problem with someone's religious stance? Tough luck. That's what he believes and he's not required to prove anything to you (afterall, it's between him and God, right?)
And you wanna have a game of "dueling reference points for truth"? You ask God for revelation about what to do if the sky goes dark, and I'll go to a astronomy table and tell you when the next solar eclipse will occur, how long it will last, and from what areas of the earth it will be seen as total or partial.
You don't accept science on faith. It either presents a plausible case based on facts, or it doesn't. No wondering, praying, yearning, or self-deprecation required.
Oh, and re: the ACLU and the Orient. Why the hell would they care about the temples or prayerwheels or any of the rest? Despite what some may claim, they aren't out to eliminate religion, just to defend The Bill of Rights and our quaranteed civil liberties under OUR constitution. And near as I can tell, our Bill of Rights doesn't apply outside of our borders anyway.
There's more, but I'm getting bored...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
wow i've just seen a miracle.... a really long post by geo.
praise somebody
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
please don't take points off for not reading this thread
thank youj
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Excath,
Sorry, rules are rules.
10 point penalty!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.