View Full Version : The Minority
I don't want to start a war, but something weird seems to be going on in the world today. I was just reading where the ruled the US pledge of allegience unconstitutional because it say's "...one nation under god...". Although I admit that there is diversity, and not all people must believe the same, why does the minority have so much power in a society that is supposed to be governed by majority rules?
Look at the NAACP, it is getting quite rediculous. It is easier now days for a single colored male with a lower GPA to get into college than and white male with a higher GPA. What about that guy who is trying ot make deodorant and collogne/perfume illegal in public? Or the one trying to make it illegal to have a pet in public unless it is shaved?
Things seem a little backwards!!!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is getting a little rediculous ?
I don't want to start a war, but something weird seems to be going on in the world today. I was just reading where the ruled the US pledge of allegience unconstitutional because it say's "...one nation under god...". Although I admit that there is diversity, and not all people must believe the same, why does the minority have so much power in a society that is supposed to be governed by majority rules?
Look at the NAACP, it is getting quite rediculous. It is easier now days for a single colored male with a lower GPA to get into college than and white male with a higher GPA. What about that guy who is trying ot make deodorant and collogne/perfume illegal in public? Or the one trying to make it illegal to have a pet in public unless it is shaved?
Things seem a little backwards!!!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is getting a little rediculous ?
the usa is fucked up.
we are not going to be able to help you change it.
well, with the pledge of allegiance, most people in the usa, i suspect, belive in one form of god or another...BUT, what happened to seperation of church and state?? the pledge seems hypocritical...
it is getting ridiculous with the advantages certain "minorities"(which by the way ARE becoming the majority) get...... but, i dont care, let em have it... i just wanna live then die, and see whats next! (better be soemthing good, im not stayin alive fer nuthing, it sucks ass here ;) )
-chris
It's not as much that it violates the seperation of church and states, as it is "what's the point?" Like the NAACP wanting to have the Confederate flag removed from a monument of the Civil War... what good does it do to take things so literally. Nothing will ever be perfect, and all that these groups running around nit-picking does is cause trouble for everyone.
The confederate flag is there as a piece of history, not a sign of slavery. The phrase "one nation under god" is in the pledge, because that's what this country was founded on. Just because a certain precentage of people don't feel that way now, they are just doing it because they can. If people would've done stuff like this a few hundred years ago, they would've probably been stoned.
I really like this saying that is on the Art of Noise CD I bought:
"Debussy understood, that a work of art, or an effort to create beauty, was always regarded by some people...as a personal attack."
-Spoken by John Hurt for the Art of Noise on "The Seduction of Claude Debussy"
This is true, no matter what there is or you do, someone will have a problem with it.
there was a movement
covering this issue several years ago
where the judge decided to allow
those who did not wish to pledge allegience,
such as jehovah's witnesses, atheists, etc,
to abstain if they so chose.
i thought that was fair and ethical.
america is rapidly turning her back on the one to whom
her forefathers turned for freedom.
america was built upon a belief in god by those
who sought religious freedom, that's where lie our roots.
if you cut away at the root of tree it's going to whither,
it's going to die.
soon, i would not doubt, "in god we trust"
will be removed from american currency....
it's sad.
time to move to canada, maybe. :)
SkyWriter
26-Jun-02, 20:45
I really like this saying that is on the Art of Noise CD I bought:
Ok, you have more sense than I gave you credit for :) Good CD!
the usa is fucked up.
we are not going to be able to help you change it.
I doubt more swedish porn is going to help, but thanks for the offer.
Yea but all you people that thinks it belongs in their because it always was:
In 1954 that under god part was added to the pledge of allegience by congress
Yes rogerm3d, and that wasn't that long ago. But the point is, it goes both ways. The people in this society whom believe what sayings like these stand for, also have to see and hear a bunch of stuff in which they don't believe. There is balance out there, however, a few people are trying to tip in one way. They say that having "in God we trust" on the money or the saying in the pledge violates them, but there is stuff that violates the other side also, but can do nothing about.
Religion is not being forced upon anyone, no more than negativities in society is forced upon it. But there is a balance, and it must remain or we will only have more trouble. What I really despise though, is people like Jesse Jackson, whom stand for (or claim so) a cause, then profit majorly from it, while in the midst doing nothign for what they stand for, but the opposite.
Religion is not being forced upon anyone, no more than negativities in society is forced upon it.
beautifully written.
I really like this saying that is on the Art of Noise CD I bought:
Ok, you have more sense than I gave you credit for :) Good CD!
Thanks! I know about the CD, I was so glad to finially find some music that had some creativity and intelligence to it. It's much more atistic than any of this stuff you hear on the radio today. I'm thinking about getting the Portis Head NYC live album also. :D
Dittohead
26-Jun-02, 22:55
hmm... it seems to me that the atheists have already forced upon our children the THEORY of evolution. I brought a Bible to elementry school one day and I was forced by my teacher to put it away. Now we don't even have the FREEDOM to say God's name in schools.
Hmm. Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I also believe quite firmly in the rule of law.
The "What's the point?" comment is well taken. There is no real point here. No one is going to be swayed one way or another by having these few words in the non-mandatory Pledge of Allegiance. However, one of things that makes this country great is that when one of us sees something wrong, we try to fix it. Of course, one could argue that that's what makes us "fucked up". I tend toward the first interpretation.
The inclusion of the phrase in the Pledge really does equate to the federal government taking a stand on the issue of God. Actually, I believe that it was President Eisenhower who signed the order to insert that little phrase into the Pledge, with his stated reason being so that millions of school children would routinely state their trust in God. Well, I don't know about you, but I can do that without a Presidential directive. And I think the pledge reads just fine as originally written, "One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Eisenhower DID overstep the bounds of the Constitution. BTW, we are not letting the minority run the show, per se. The Constitution is running the show. If the majority is on the wrong side of the Constitution and the minority points it out and asks for a correction, then I would say things are functioning exactly as they are supposed to.
We NEED stuff like this. Debates like this. They're what keep up thinking and striving for a better system. None of us should ever be content.
"The price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance."
Free Mars
26-Jun-02, 23:09
In time the world will change and we will no longer live here, but the earth will not care. Our lifespan is nothing compared to those that came before us.
That is a good point about evolution. I'm not sure about Eisenhower's intentions exactly when he did that. But it is hard to debate an issue such as this, because it is based on two entirely sepearte pools of data. First off, atheists and evolutionsists, base their views off of facts or lack of. Where's christians, or people of a religion or faith, base their views off more of a traditional standpoint. So you end up nit-picking over facts and laws, and tradition. Which naturally these to subjects don't mix well and you end up with people feeling personally attacked in any situation.
acasto: Yea I agree with you on that one. Arguments like this serve little or no purpose.
They only serve to put one of the sides back on top.
Then a few moments later the scales are tipped back by someother argument.
No one ever gets the upper hand, or gets really anything out of it.
My 4 line rant about this. 8) :D
hmm... it seems to me that the atheists have already forced upon our children the THEORY of evolution. I brought a Bible to elementry school one day and I was forced by my teacher to put it away. Now we don't even have the FREEDOM to say God's name in schools.
Well, you are only in elementary school, so your lack of understanding of the subject can be forgiven. I am assuming you are more a product of the dogma that has been crammed down your throat all your life than someone who has honestly thought seriously about the subject. There is, however, an ocean of difference between a theory based on accumulated evidence and open to critisism, and a belief system that rejects any chalange to its authority. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then there is no basis for a rational discussion on the subject.
Warren
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 00:18
I don't want to start a war, but something weird seems to be going on in the world today. I was just reading where the ruled the US pledge of allegience unconstitutional because it say's "...one nation under god...". Although I admit that there is diversity, and not all people must believe the same, why does the minority have so much power in a society that is supposed to be governed by majority rules?
Look at the NAACP, it is getting quite rediculous. It is easier now days for a single colored male with a lower GPA to get into college than and white male with a higher GPA. What about that guy who is trying ot make deodorant and collogne/perfume illegal in public? Or the one trying to make it illegal to have a pet in public unless it is shaved?
Things seem a little backwards!!!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is getting a little rediculous ?
No, it's not getting rediculous. In fact, it's working exactly as it's supposed to work. Contrary to what you might think, the US is not governed by "tyranny of the majority". It is a constitutional republic in which *every* citizen, regardless of how they might fit into one or more minority classes, is guaranteed the same, concurrent rights. Some policies admittedly push the envelope (like reverse descrimination), but overall, the idea is that the will of the majority cannot usurp the rights of the minority.
With respect to the Pledge, how many people who are bitching about today's decision are aware of the history of this issue? How many of them could tell you that the words "under god" were added in 1954, and endorsed by then President Eisenhower? I believe it was at this same time, the words "In God We Trust" were added to the back of paper currency. His specific intent was to remind us of our relationship to the almighty (god), which in my mind is a direct violation of a constitution that expressly forbids the establishment of religion by the state.
All of this took place during the height of the "commie scare" - it was a reactionary measure to something that was beyond the immediate control of the country's leadership, much like the terrorist dilemma we face today. When an elementary school kid stands and recites the pledge, how likely is is that they can even begin to understand its implications? They can't. And because they can't, they can't make any rational judgement as to whether or not the the ideals represented by the flag deserve to stand on their own merits. Herein lies the difference between patriotism and indoctrination. But the religious issue itself is one that at some point, needed to be addressed. The only thing today's decision brought us was a return to the original (more constitutional) version of the pledge, and nothing more.
Bob_dog, why don't you read overextruded's post, then your own. A child repeating the pledge does not understand the implications of the meaning of it. Well, neither do they the theory of evolution. It is a complex scientifc THEORY in which even the best scientists in the world can not completely prove. Yet explaing this to 6th graders in one chapter in a low rate biology book should answer all their questions?
Teaching evolution in school, at an age where they don't understand the meaning of that is imposing a theory onto them that we can't even say is true or not also. I know your gonna say that 14 and 15 years age isn't that young, but people of any age, that is not versed in the ways of advanced biology and chemistry, can't fully understand the implication and possibilites proposed by the theory of evolution. Thus your presenting a theory, in which you assume to be true, and expect them to take it as fact!
Overextruded, we have been talking about the history all throughout this thread. We are aware. As for the system working correctly, sure it is working, if someones rights were being intruded. What most people who think this is a good decision can't answer, is, what does it hurt? What about violence and language on television? What about other religions that is actively demonstrated publicly around the nation?
There is many factor in the world today that hurt children far more than the words "one nation under god" do, yet no one is doing anything about them. However this makes the top story. I suggest the system is not working, it is taking the taxpayers money to solve a problems that isn't a problem, and not solving problems that are.
Since when is it wrong to stand up for your rights? The US was founded on the principle of religious freedom, any thing that infringes that or any other right (they are rights not privliges that can be revoked) should be fought. There are far to many people that think that their way is how all should live and think and that their view is in the majority, there is no such thing as a majority in the US, just a balancing (scales swaying back and forth) of many different view points, some where around 300,000,000 of them. "...one nation under god..." ok which god? Your god? My god? Allah, or the father son and the holy ghost, Christ? Which god? Just because you think it's right doesn't mean it should be forced on those that dissagree, it's there right to point out the infringement of their rights.
Velikm, since when has it been forced? It wasn't even a big issue until today
I doubt more swedish porn is going to help, but thanks for the offer.
so tell me...what has porn something to do with all this ?
and...think again, what do you all "over there" know about the rest of the world anyway ?
I doubt it, not much I would guess ;) :P
haunt_house
27-Jun-02, 04:09
It is a constitutional republic in which *every* citizen, regardless of how they might fit into one or more minority classes, is guaranteed the same, concurrent rights.
well, in theory yes. But in reality the one with the money has much more rights than the poor. Or to put it another way, what use is a right, if you cannot use it?
HH
Is there really a difference in porn between countries? Maybe porn will bring us all together. I propose an experiment, hang multiple, unmarked photographs on the wall, and see if you can tell a real difference. Anyone willing to do this experiment an let us know the results? :)
Oh my... I think it's time for me to get some sleep
haunt_house
27-Jun-02, 04:26
what time is it?
it is a quarter after ten a.m. here
HH
Is there really a difference in porn between countries? Maybe porn will bring us all together.
LOL hehe...yeah maybe...I think SkyWriter were kind of insulted by Green...and he couldn't take it as a Man...and that is why I had to put something up there LOL :D
SkyWriter
27-Jun-02, 06:58
Is there really a difference in porn between countries? Maybe porn will bring us all together.
LOL hehe...yeah maybe...I think SkyWriter were kind of insulted by Green...and he couldn't take it as a Man...and that is why I had to put something up there LOL :D
green is a silly boy, and deserved a silly answer.
Religion is not being forced upon anyone, no more than negativities in society is forced upon it.
Not being forced upon anyone? Were have you been for the past 2000 years?
Religion is definately forced onto people. For example there are lots of small villages in my country (which is generally concidered to be a very liberal country) were if you don't go to church on sundays, noone in the village will talk to you. This is still going on, and will probably go on for some time longer.
Though I do think you're right that religion is not forced upon people anymore in larger communities (though this is unfortunately not the case in all parts of the world).
Now asfar as it comes about that "ne nation under god" thing, I do not think it makes sense to take it out of the pledge since it's been a part of it, and a part of america's history for so long now.
However I would find it rediculous if people were somehow forced to recite the pledge, or any pledge refering to anykind of religion for that matter (like swearing on the bible in court).
What I also find strange is that the president of the united states, who is supposed to speak for ALL the americans, still says "may god bless america" after every speach. I don't think that's a smart thing to do at all. I think this is a slap in the face to all the other americans who don't believe in any god, or who believe in a different god.
I hope this somehow makes sense to some people :)
Greets,
Timothy
Is there really a difference in porn between countries? Maybe porn will bring us all together.
LOL hehe...yeah maybe...I think SkyWriter were kind of insulted by Green...and he couldn't take it as a Man...and that is why I had to put something up there LOL :D
green is a silly boy, and deserved a silly answer.
oh yeah? does monkey boy wanna put his money where his mouth is?
""""""""""""""
Now asfar as it comes about that "ne nation under god" thing, I do not think it makes sense to take it out of the pledge since it's been a part of it, and a part of america's history for so long now.
""""""""""""""""""""""""
Yeah. all the long time since 1954 :)
In Canada, where President Bush was taking part in an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous."
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
SkyWriter
27-Jun-02, 08:39
oh yeah? does monkey boy wanna put his money where his mouth is?
at least i have money. and made a serious donation to blender foundation. did you?
oh yeah? does monkey boy wanna put his money where his mouth is?
at least i have money. and made a serious donation to blender foundation. did you?
They own the personal car part of volvo.
Every other part is still owned by the swedish company.
And saab is still 50% swedish. (I think)
And...... we have Ikea.
ha! Take that! :P
George H.W. Bush, as Presidential Nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
LOL , hilarous !!!! :o
YAY!!
Check out http://iptic.com .....it's always evolving!!! Well... not to fast.
A web page cannot "evolve", it developes. Perhaps you should save your comments on the subject until you have done your homework (something a lot of kids in America could stand to do). Or is it simply your theory that your web page is evolving? I could go on and on, but it's not worth the effort.
Dittohead
27-Jun-02, 10:35
hmm... it seems to me that the atheists have already forced upon our children the THEORY of evolution. I brought a Bible to elementry school one day and I was forced by my teacher to put it away. Now we don't even have the FREEDOM to say God's name in schools.
Well, you are only in elementary school, so your lack of understanding of the subject can be forgiven. I am assuming you are more a product of the dogma that has been crammed down your throat all your life than someone who has honestly thought seriously about the subject. There is, however, an ocean of difference between a theory based on accumulated evidence and open to critisism, and a belief system that rejects any chalange to its authority. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then there is no basis for a rational discussion on the subject.
Warren
Had you replied with a constructive comment, we could have a serious debate. Instead you decided to take a personal jab at me because of my belief, this undermines your credibility. If you want to convince me I am wrong then you must constructively comment on the issue in order to have a good debate, instead of making worthless bashes about me and how I believe.
Where's the missing link anyway? Where's all the 'accumulated evidence'?
Bob_dog, that is both stupid and rediculous. That is a figure of speech and you know that, so find something else to make dumb comments about.
You couldn't go on and on because you simply can not say more with looking even more and more rediculous. I've done my homework, but I doubt you have because intsead of dazziling us with your smarts, you insult us with your snide remarks.
slikdigit
27-Jun-02, 12:01
Just a little aside:
I believe the "under god" part of the pledge was a more recent addition- The original writer of the pledge was a christian socialist as far as I know- Belamy?sp?
in the mid 50's the knights of colombus pressured congress to tack on the under god part.
personally I'd be happy to see it go. Separation of Church and State (more generally , religion and state) is an important foundation of democracy. The addition is the ridiculous part, not the complaint.
Some fun alternatives
One nation under vishnu
One nation under Budda
One Nation under Allah
and my favourite (for Asterix fans)
One Nation under Toutatis united
I kill myself. :D :D :D :D :D :D
Just a little aside:
I believe the "under god" part of the pledge was a more recent addition- The original writer of the pledge was a christian socialist as far as I know- Belamy?sp?
in the mid 50's the knights of colombus pressured congress to tack on the under god part.
personally I'd be happy to see it go. Separation of Church and State (more generally , religion and state) is an important foundation of democracy. The addition is the ridiculous part, not the complaint.
Some fun alternatives
One nation under vishnu
One nation under Budda
One Nation under Allah
and my favourite (for Asterix fans)
One Nation under Toutatis united
I kill myself. :D :D :D :D :D :D
added in 1954... (as I said/typed earlier)
But it was added with strong public support. It would be different if this was something that actually hurt someone, such as deprived them of food, medicine, etc.... But the majority of Americans support this, and I think that if the majority want something, and the miniory is not harmed, then the majority should win. It would be like if a bunch of people were going to watch a movie, and one person didn't like the movie. I bet you that everyone would still watch the movie.
But it was added with strong public support. It would be different if this was something that actually hurt someone, such as deprived them of food, medicine, etc.... But the majority of Americans support this, and I think that if the majority want something, and the miniory is not harmed, then the majority should win. It would be like if a bunch of people were going to watch a movie, and one person didn't like the movie. I bet you that everyone would still watch the movie.
Well. Harmful.
It’s a big part of why you are the laughing stock of the whole world.
I dont even think most people that say it realise that its not a pledge to the actual flag.
If most don't realize what it is, then how can it bring harm?
These people are still free to believe whatever they want, if someone is all of the sudden converted because of a little saying, then they are too easily branwashed and will probably end up in a cult.
The point isn't harmful or harmless or majority or minority. The point is legality. Clearly, it is unconstitutional for that phrase to appear in a direct semi-requirement of the federal government. It is like they are stating their official position. It doesn't matter who it hurts or doesn't from your perspective.
BTW, Green - yeah yeah laughing stock... We have weird ideas... we care about stuff that we shouldn't... we don't care about stuff that we should... we're naive... we're crass.. etc. Okay. Bye!
Wait! Wait! Come back! If you guys go home, who's going to prevent small regional conflicts brought about by psychotic dictators from becoming major conflagrations ala WWII? Please come back! We were just kidding about that laughing-stock stuff! Really! And we like your money too. Can we have some more of your phenomenal productivity and money? We could really really use it! -aside- Suckers.
The point isn't harmful or harmless or majority or minority. The point is legality. Clearly, it is unconstitutional for that phrase to appear in a direct semi-requirement of the federal government. It is like they are stating their official position. It doesn't matter who it hurts or doesn't from your perspective.
BTW, Green - yeah yeah laughing stock... We have weird ideas... we care about stuff that we shouldn't... we don't care about stuff that we should... we're naive... we're crass.. etc. Okay. Bye!
Wait! Wait! Come back! If you guys go home, who's going to prevent small regional conflicts brought about by psychotic dictators from becoming major conflagrations ala WWII? Please come back! We were just kidding about that laughing-stock stuff! Really! And we like your money too. Can we have some more of your phenomenal productivity and money? We could really really use it! -aside- Suckers.
and this applies to sweden... how exactly?
and this applies to sweden... how exactly?
darn, I always thought that sweden was the money cow (is that the expression?) of Europe :P
At least they had Elvis' "Blue Sweden Shoes" :P
Martin
I consider myself a political moderate (middle of the road), you know, one of those people the radicals on the left and right call "roadkill". I have never been to church and don't have much use for people who consider themselves superior to me because they have. But, I was never offended when the Pledge was said and can't understand why someone would feel compelled to take legal action if they were. Particularly since they aren't forced to say it.
We have too many lawyers in this country. More (by far) than any other country on earth (maybe this should be included in Green's "laughing stock" list) and they have to have something to do. If some perceived slight or offense occurs, there will always be a bunch of them queing up for the big payday or the publicity. Political correctness has gone WAY too far. Common sense is what is lacking.
The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Pledge will be decided in the courts, not public opinion polls. It is true that some 90+ percent of the US population believes in some kind of higher being, but unless they are sitting on the court, it doesn't mean a damn thing. BTW, I took the liberty of looking more closely at the decisions handed down by the 9th circuit. This decision is going to be overturned, either by the rest of the 9th circuit or the Supreme Court.
In 1997, 28 of 29 decisions were reversed by the Supremes and, before everybody starts screaming about the conservativism of that court (which is true), 2/3 of those reversals were unanimous.
This group is living in fantasyland.
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 13:53
Bob_dog, why don't you read overextruded's post, then your own. A child repeating the pledge does not understand the implications of the meaning of it. Well, neither do they the theory of evolution. It is a complex scientifc THEORY in which even the best scientists in the world can not completely prove. Yet explaing this to 6th graders in one chapter in a low rate biology book should answer all their questions?
Teaching evolution in school, at an age where they don't understand the meaning of that is imposing a theory onto them that we can't even say is true or not also. I know your gonna say that 14 and 15 years age isn't that young, but people of any age, that is not versed in the ways of advanced biology and chemistry, can't fully understand the implication and possibilites proposed by the theory of evolution. Thus your presenting a theory, in which you assume to be true, and expect them to take it as fact!
You're correct. We cannot say for certain that the theory of evolution is the reason for our existence. But we can simplify what we believe to be true in order to convey an idea to someone that may not fully understand its complexity. Academic complexity, though, and issues involving religious faith, are quite different. With respect to the theory of evolution, the implication is that, this is what we believe to be true at this time, based on what we know." It's the scientific method at work, and it in no way implies a definitive answer. Instead, it offers a dynamic schema that is subject to change based on subsequent knowledge. Religious faith is entirely different. With faith-related issues, the implication is that, "this is the religious perspective that we endorse, and that by extension, you should endorse." Since religious doctrine is entirely subjective (and not subject to change) the government cannot be in the business of endorsing one religious perspective over another.
Overextruded, we have been talking about the history all throughout this thread. We are aware. As for the system working correctly, sure it is working, if someones rights were being intruded. What most people who think this is a good decision can't answer, is, what does it hurt? What about violence and language on television? What about other religions that is actively demonstrated publicly around the nation?
You're talking about several different issues here. But the primary issue with respect to the pledge is this: the government cannot endorse a preference for one religious perspective other another. What if, for example, every religious group in the country demanded equal representation? How would you accommodate that without offending practically everyone? I'm not sure what you mean by 'publicly demonstrated'. The pledge doesn't say "under Allah", it says "under god," and we know what was intended here. What other religious group gets anywhere near the same level of public endorsement from the government?
There is many factor in the world today that hurt children far more than the words "one nation under god" do, yet no one is doing anything about them. However this makes the top story. I suggest the system is not working, it is taking the taxpayers money to solve a problems that isn't a problem, and not solving problems that are.
But this particular issue is a problem because it violates the constitution. If people don't care about their stewardship with respect to the laws that form the basis of our government, the very principles for which many have fought and died, what's left?
I am almost in favour of that being taken out of the pledge. Now no one have an excuse not to pledge there alegance to there country. If you wont work for your country why should your country work for you. By the people(That means YOU), for the people(That is also youShure America is not perfect, but at least when people complain they can be herd and things can be changed.
As for the minority ruling over the majority and political correctness I think it has gone to far. A good example is the word "nigger" I don't mean anyone offence by saying this and I know that I could get beat up for it being white. But what was the last major rap CD that came out with out this word being used excessivly. Becuase I am not black is it wrong for me to say it?
I am almost in favour of that being taken out of the pledge. Now no one have an excuse not to pledge there alegance to there country. If you wont work for your country why should your country work for you. By the people(That means YOU), for the people(That is also youShure America is not perfect, but at least when people complain they can be herd and things can be changed.
Why should they do it at all?
I have never sworn alegance to Sweden.
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 14:04
It is a constitutional republic in which *every* citizen, regardless of how they might fit into one or more minority classes, is guaranteed the same, concurrent rights.
well, in theory yes. But in reality the one with the money has much more rights than the poor. Or to put it another way, what use is a right, if you cannot use it?
HH
Do you have an example? People with more money are afforded, in some cases, more privilege, but I'm not sure they have more 'rights'.
I'm staying out of the entire religeous debate. I'm merely replying to the initial post, so what I'm about to say has nothing to do with any other replies.
Absolute freedom is a paradox. When two belief systems clash then their very existance threatens each others' freedom. Forbiding students to have the Bible in the class room for personal use may be defending the rights of the athiests and the non-Christian religeons, but it suppresses the rights of the Christians. On the other hand, if the Christians are allowed to maintain the doctrines of their faith, which is to minister to the non believers, then the athiests and other religeons feel their rights are suppressed.
The bottom line is there is no such thing as absolute freedom. One side must be suppressed for the other side to have freedom, or else both will be under the illusion that neither side has freedom.
You are totally right fullback, I thought about it the last few hours and this is what I've come to.
Logically, from a standpoint of policy, the decision is right. However, you can group things into one of two groups when it comes to things like this: active policy, and tradition. I was always against the notion of have the pledge mandatory, that would be implementing it as an active policy. But as long as it remains as voluntary, it is nothing more than a time honored tradition. Which is why I think this decision is rediculous. It is taking a tradition and judging it as policy.
It's just something that has been, and will be for some time. A lot of people in this country don't celebrate Chrismas, yet there is quite a big Christmas tree in the White House every year. This same thing applies to the confederate flag, as long as it remains on a monument or sort, it stays in the realm of history and tradition, not current active policy.
@ overextruded : as far as I'm concerned about evolutoin, I see no major difference between that and faith. It takes a lot of faith in theories that science has yet to totally, and may never prove to completely believe it. I am not against evolution being taught in schoo. I just don't think it deserves it's own chapter. Maybe a part in the 'Ongoing theories' section. What about every other major scientific theory that has impact on our lives that don't have their own chapter or arn't even mentioned?
Velikm, since when has it been forced? It wasn't even a big issue until today
It was a big issue when I was in grade school, if you refused to say "one nation under god" you were sent to the principles office for discipline. Sounds forced to me.
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 14:21
Now asfar as it comes about that "ne nation under god" thing, I do not think it makes sense to take it out of the pledge since it's been a part of it, and a part of america's history for so long now...
So, you endorse a process of common-law violation of the Constitution? In other words, even though something may have violated the Constitution for 48 years or so, it's ok because of the length of time involved. Sort of like a statute of limitations on Constitutional adherence?
What I also find strange is that the president of the united states, who is supposed to speak for ALL the americans, still says "may god bless america" after every speach. I don't think that's a smart thing to do at all. I think this is a slap in the face to all the other americans who don't believe in any god, or who believe in a different god.
For one things, it's good PR. Bush said something else either yesterday or today in response to the pledge ruling, that suggests the same bias (and I quote): We received our rights from god as proclaimed in our declaration of independence.
But that is what is proclaimed in the declaration of independance and supported by majority of Americans
I think that the UN should land troops in USA and clear things up. I mean, it´s a damned mess out there! :P :P :P :P Now, I´m just being sarcastic towards USAs habit to jump into conflicts which aren´t really there business, like the Vietnam-War.
But dosn't the USA comprise a large portions of the UN troops
Dittohead
27-Jun-02, 15:04
It seems to me that the (certain or many) Sweedish hate/dislike Americans. :-?
It seems to me that the (certain or many) Sweedish hate/dislike Americans. :-?
nope. but some of us find them funny.
why would we hate them?
alot of them are former swedes.
not to long ago 1.2 million of us emigrated to the us. (thats alot of people)
and besides. we dont have much to hate them for.
Often times sweden are seen as the mini usa of europe.
Alot of the minority group lifestyles get imported. and we are generally flooded with media from the us. So if I were to say something about that relationship we appear to love the usa.
(historicly sweden has imitated whatever country was the leading force in the world)
I think that the UN should land troops in USA and clear things up.
Are they going to have diplomatic immunity when they land?
My boss is from Belgium, he said that some companies would even test products in the Netherlans or Sweden to see if they would work here in the US.
ray_theway
27-Jun-02, 16:12
I would like to refute a "given" often referred to earlier in this thread. I would challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution, Declaration of Indepedence, or any other paper where a "separation of church and state" is mandated. The phrasing of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (emphasis mine) Now, all I see in this statement is the one of the highest priorities of the founding fathers - to avoid Britain's overbearing mandate of the Anglican church at the time. This phrase actually prohibits the United States government from prohibiting the free (reasonable) exercise of any religion.
I think that the UN should land troops in USA and clear things up. I mean, it´s a damned mess out there! :P :P :P :P Now, I´m just being sarcastic towards USAs habit to jump into conflicts which aren´t really there business, like the Vietnam-War.
How true, it was French business (the Vietnam-conflict, it was never declared as a war), and they invited the US in after getting their asses kicked. The UN troops have worked/trained in the US, at urban supression and weapon confiscation.
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 17:46
[snip]
@ overextruded : as far as I'm concerned about evolutoin, I see no major difference between that and faith. It takes a lot of faith in theories that science has yet to totally, and may never prove to completely believe it.
Nonetheless, my analogy holds true - science is objective and allows for change, and faith, being completely subjective, does not.
I am not against evolution being taught in schoo. I just don't think it deserves it's own chapter.
If it were my book, the chapter would be entitled, "The Theory of Evolution," and it would have it's own chapter because there is quite a bit that can be said about it.
Maybe a part in the 'Ongoing theories' section. What about every other major scientific theory that has impact on our lives that don't have their own chapter or arn't even mentioned?
Can you think of specific theories that are similarly so completely fundamental to our existence, yet are not mentioned in the average curriculum?
How evolution is taught in school is taughts a basis for how living organisms came about, biologically. But evolution is just not biological, however taught. No scientific theory is encompassed complete by only one subject. I believe that physics/math and it's theories and possiblities should be taught more than those such as evoution.
What is it with people that are so hard core evoutionist that not only can they totally put down other people's faith, but also think it is "THE" theory in science. Evolution describes a possibility of an occurance on this planet, in this time. I can assure you, that there is much more than that in this universe. Why not teach possibilities instead of just evolution? Why not let people and students decide on their own?
Many evolutionist usually don't even understand the core sciences that make evolution even possible, such as chemistry, physics, math, or even geophysics and earth sciences.
As for a theory that is fundamental to our exsistance.... have you heard of the Big Band Theory, or the theory of relativity, or quantom physics (including string theory). Some of these are 'mentioned' as you say, but it just that, they're only mentioned. I have seen very few educational books that is detailed on these topics nearly as much as they are on evolution.
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 18:06
But that is what is proclaimed in the declaration of independance and supported by majority of Americans
Are you familiar with the term, "Nature's God?" It sounds almost pagan, but that's exactly how it's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
The DOI reads,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It doesn't mean what Eiesenhower intended with the words "under God". It doesn't say "God Almighty," "God the Father," nor does it make any reference to Christ or Christianity. If Bush wants to be true to the intended meaning of the DOI, he needs to state the "god" reference within its proper context. Otherwise, it's misrepresentation.
The UN troops have worked/trained in the US, at urban supression and weapon confiscation
It doesn't really matter where they train. The troops are good, and motivated, but they are hamstrung by the legendary UN political beauracracy. As a result, they frequently get hammered by any opposing entity capable of making a simple decision. "Sorry, you can't fire back until the High Commisioners discuss it for a while. We'll get back to you --- if any of you are still alive by then."
Witness: Somalia; Rwanda; Pretty much the entire Bosnian mess, but Srebrenica in particular. Safe Haven?
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 18:21
How evolution is taught in school is taughts a basis for how living organisms came about, biologically. But evolution is just not biological, however taught. No scientific theory is encompassed complete by only one subject. I believe that physics/math and it's theories and possiblities should be taught more than those such as evoution.
What is it with people that are so hard core evoutionist that not only can they totally put down other people's faith, but also think it is "THE" theory in science. Evolution describes a possibility of an occurance on this planet, in this time. I can assure you, that there is much more than that in this universe. Why not teach possibilities instead of just evolution? Why not let people and students decide on their own?
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that every effort to teach the theory of evolution ought to be accompanied by a sermon about the Christian faith?
Many evolutionist usually don't even understand the core sciences that make evolution even possible, such as chemistry, physics, math, or even geophysics and earth sciences.
This is true for any field, and the reason is simple...it takes a great deal of time and study to master any of them. So, the option is to become a jack of all trades, understanding a little of each, or a master of one, with the ability to dig into it with the depth and focus necessary for further discovery. Both roles have their respective merits- it all depends on what one hopes to accomplish.
As for a theory that is fundamental to our exsistance.... have you heard of the Big Band Theory, or the theory of relativity, or quantom physics (including string theory). Some of these are 'mentioned' as you say, but it just that, they're only mentioned. I have seen very few educational books that is detailed on these topics nearly as much as they are on evolution.
I've heard of all of them. But what I don't understand exactly, is why the notion that the theory of evolution may get more exposure, is such a concern. Will a student who spends more time learning about the Big Bang theory really be any better off?
Just my 2 cents.
First of all, the idea that America was founded on a belief in God is complete rubbish. The Pilgrims were an isolated group that came to the America's to escape religious persecution, this is true, but they were be no means the only group to come here and there have been many Atheists throughout the history of the world.
I believe Thomas Paine had some interesting comments about the Bible and Religion? Oh but I'm sure he and others like him don't count in US history!
Secondly, I don't know how I feel about the ruling about the pledge of allegiance but I do agree with something that I heard on the radio the other day. It seems that whenever a law is passed to stop someone from imposing their views/will on others it is inevitable the imposers will be the first and loudest protestors. 'How dare you take away my right to impose my views on you!' Like it or not, when you send your children to school, the teacher is there in place of the parents of all the children and is therefore given the responsibilty to not undermine the authority of the parents ESPECIALLY ON ISSUES OF CONSCIENCE. The issue here is not that someone is asking to give teachers the right to stand up in class everyday and shout 'there is no God!' (which would be unconstitutional), but to keep the Government from sticking its nose into places it dosnt belong. It is up to the parents to decide how to approach such subjects with their children, not the public school systems.
That being said I'm not sure how serious this should be taken. It seems to me a bit silly to press the issue to this extreme, but I havn't completley made my mind up.
Finally, Evolutionist != Atheist. Why some people find this concept so difficult to grasp is perfectly beyond me.
Zarficle (Whos an agnostic and not a evolutionist)
-------------------
Ack!Nosighere!
overextrude
27-Jun-02, 20:00
I would like to refute a "given" often referred to earlier in this thread. I would challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution, Declaration of Indepedence, or any other paper where a "separation of church and state" is mandated. The phrasing of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
And if I were to ask you what this phrase means, taken in its entirety, what would you say? In other words, how is a government manifested that can create no law respecting an establishment of religion?
No one has said that evolutionist equals atheist. Only that it is another view, a possibilty, that is being imposed upon people, in which a lot don't believe, yet still must learn it. So it's okay for one side to impose beliefs on the other because there's is grounded in science (or lack of), or so the think. But one founded on beliefs, tradition, and cluture is imposing?
How is saying something imposing on someones beliefs? They are not being threatened or forced to do or not do anything. They are only causing trouble and imposing on others by placing yet more restricitions on an otherwise free society. People shouldn't complain about the pledge, because they don't have to say it. If it's that big of deal, then heck, why don't they just write their own.
Overextruded, having words in phrases, that may imply there is a God, is far from a law. As long as people aren't being forced to say it. The government also does a fair share of sponsoring other types of religious and cultural programs, and promotes tolerance. The beliefs that are expressed in our tradition, however, is what the majority believes in. It would be just like if someone complained about President Bush celebrating Easter or Christmas. They have to right to complain about the pledge, just as much as we have the right to say it. But if it goes beyond complaing, then that is opression.
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 00:59
No one has said that evolutionist equals atheist. Only that it is another view, a possibilty, that is being imposed upon people, in which a lot don't believe, yet still must learn it. So it's okay for one side to impose beliefs on the other because there's is grounded in science (or lack of), or so the think. But one founded on beliefs, tradition, and cluture is imposing?
So...if I'm teaching someone about a theory that is based on objective measurement, observation, and research, I'm imposing it on them? How is that? As I've mentioned, beliefs are subjective. Because these beliefs and religiously-based traditions are often intermixed with personal bias and interpretation, I do not understand how they can be treated in the same manner. On the other hand, I would have no objection to a class that taught about religions in general. I participated in such a class while in high school.
How is saying something imposing on someones beliefs? They are not being threatened or forced to do or not do anything. They are only causing trouble and imposing on others by placing yet more restricitions on an otherwise free society. People shouldn't complain about the pledge, because they don't have to say it. If it's that big of deal, then heck, why don't they just write their own.
Because they may not represent my beliefs, and because of the mere fact that your beliefs, through the pledge, are being publicly endorsed by the government, thus elevating them to a higher standard than mine. Is that fair?
Overextruded, having words in phrases, that may imply there is a God, is far from a law.
The addition of these words was based on an action by Congress (through the legislative process), so it does qualify as law. In 1954, Congress passed a law that added the words, "under god" after the words "One nation", to the pledge of allegiance.
As long as people aren't being forced to say it. The government also does a fair share of sponsoring other types of religious and cultural programs, and promotes tolerance.
I don't think it's reasonable to mix culture and religion - one's religious faith can certainly be part of their culture, but the reverse is not true. Religious faith exists as an entity unto itself, culture notwithstanding.
The beliefs that are expressed in our tradition, however, is what the majority believes in.
It doesn't matter what the majority believes. The Constitution offers equal and concurrent rights to everyone (that's the basis of individual rights), regardless of their religious affiliation.
It would be just like if someone complained about President Bush celebrating Easter or Christmas. They have to right to complain about the pledge, just as much as we have the right to say it. But if it goes beyond complaing, then that is opression.
No, oppression is what happens when you have a majority usurping rights of the minority. To put it another way, I'd suggest that I have just as much right to be free from your religion, as you have to be free from mine. This cannot happen when the government publicly endorses one religion over another.
So saying something that isn't YOUR beliefs makes it imposing??? Well, I didn't know the whole world was supposed to bow to the miniorities wishes, just to make them happy and not hurt their feelings. If it does hurt your (and anyones) feelings, then I suggest classes on self esteem. There is a lot of crap going on everyday that offends a lot of people, but most don't run to a lawyer, call CNN and make a big deal about how their 'rights' were so obused.
You have the right to write you own pledge, so then why don't you. Because it's funner to run around a ridiculous topic instead of solving rea problems? That is the problem with people like that, the world disintegrates out for under neath them because their too worried about the majority stepping on their rights. Well you know, there a reson theres a minority! So in human nature, and civilization, there comes a time where the majority must just say "too bad!" and forget about it.
Evolution could be taught as you say, but it isn't. It is taught as the 'origin' of life. It would fit well into the chapter on the scientific process because that's all it really is. It's a mixture of facts and data gathered by the scientific process in which when you look at in in certain like forms a theory dubbed 'evolution'. You are denying the fact that it is being taught as fact, while it has always remained a theory?
While it is mostly hardcore leftwingers whom oppose something such as the pledge, hardcore rightwingers oppose things such as evolution in schools, yet it isn't being removed. The minority, (the ones with the bigger mouths) , simply whine the most and get their way the most.
I don't know what world your living in, but in a lot of the world, culture and relgion is one and the same. Look at the Isreal/Palestinian deal. Logically they could sperate chruch/state and live happily ever after. But their cultures are two totally different things, and their culture has always been dictated by their religion.
Can you even think of one time someone was hurt by the words "one nation under god" or "in god we trust" ????
If not, then what's the problem???
You will say "....it's against the constitution..." but I'm sure if people really made it a big deal to intrude into the laws and practices you like, they could find something little to make a big deal about also.
Xampersand
28-Jun-02, 09:34
I would submit that the Theory of Evolution is a religion like any other.
What are the basic components of religion?
Webster's online dictionary defines religion a number of ways, but for the basis of this discussion, I think that the following two entries fit best.
"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
The Theory of Evolution has it's leader in Chuck Darwin. Those who believe in the ToE exercise faith in their beliefs and attempt to convince others to believe also, not unlike those who believe in a supernatural higher power attempt to convert others.
The question of from where did we originate cannot be conclusively answered. Those who believe in the Theory of God (ToG) believe that a Higher Power caused the universe to come into being. The Bible is the only proof that they can offer for their beliefs, but the Bible was written by a number of authors who were not there for the event in question. ToG believers would contend that the Bible is essentially an interview with God, since He inspired it. But as they can't produce Him for a follow-up interview, or to affirm that the Bible is representative of the facts as He witnessed them, the Bible cannot be accepted as fact from a scientific standpoint. Those who subscribe to the ToE believe that all things were begun from a Big Bang. As with the Bible there is no supporting documentation available to support this theory.
Okay, ToG believer, if your god created everything, from where did he originate? Answer: My God is eternal, that is, existing out of time, so that
there is no beginning or end to my God.
Okay, Evolutionist, from where did the materials that blew up in the Big Bang originate? Answer: (sound of crickets chirping here)
This is the question that those who subscribe to ToE are unable, and quite unwilling to answer. The answer they don't want to give is that they don't know, they simply believe (have faith) that this is the way it happened.
The bottom line is that both theories require belief outside of available evidence. Neither can be proved. Period.
So we are left with faith. And a public (federally funded) school teaching one faith while excluding another is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think that too much time is spent on the issue. Both theories should be included in a subnote in the first chapter of science books, along with a section that says, "Since this is a question that science cannot answer, because the Scientific Method cannot be applied to any of the theories on the subject, it will not be discussed in this text. The reader is encouraged to seek out several of the hundreds of books on the subject and come to his or her own conclusions."
I myself find it much more plausable that God is responsible for creation, simply because evolution requires the believer to believe so many things that fall outside the realm of logic. ToG only requires one leap of faith, while ToE requires the believer to ignore that there is no source of all the materials involved in the Big Bang, that the Big Bang was somehow able to subvert natural law (ie. things wear out, they don't spontaneously improve, or my car would spontaneously be changing into a Porsche!), and the list goes on.
As for the topic that started this thread, I don't think that the pledge should be recited on a daily basis. In fact, I think that making the pledge should be done only before voting, or for the members of the military before joining the service. (I know this post is long, but bear with me for just a few more lines.)
The pledge states simply that the person making the pledge is an American. Allied with the Republic. It's not unlike swearing to tell the truth and the whole truth in a court proceding. Thus, prior to casting my ballot, I afirm that the decision I am making is based on my personal belief of what will be best for this country, because I am allied with the Republic.
Like the oath taken before testifying in court, it serves only as a record of the speaker's intentions, and has no real control over what the speaker actually does or says. And like the oath in court procedings, those who do not believe in God would not be required to make their oath in the name of God.
Again, it's something that should be taught in school in a government class, and it should be a paragraph, not a chapter.
Anonymous
28-Jun-02, 10:42
Nice topic.
I think minorities are more important then mayorities: The minorities make the important changes.
-Joeri
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 12:36
So saying something that isn't YOUR beliefs makes it imposing??? Well, I didn't know the whole world was supposed to bow to the miniorities wishes, just to make them happy and not hurt their feelings. If it does hurt your (and anyones) feelings, then I suggest classes on self esteem. There is a lot of crap going on everyday that offends a lot of people, but most don't run to a lawyer, call CNN and make a big deal about how their 'rights' were so obused.
Don't you think this trivializes the issue? I do. You see, today we could be talking about the words, "under god" as they appear in the Pledge of Allegiance. Tomorrow, it could be something much more substantive, something with far-reaching implications- like I mentioned in my very first post on the subject. Let me restate this, as its importance cannot be emphasized enough: Our constitution forbids the passage of laws that respect an establishment of religion. It has nothing to do with self esteem or whose feelings may be hurt. It has to do with law, and I'd even argue, the level of patriotism one is willing to demonstrate in order to see that the Constitution is properly upheld.
You have the right to write you own pledge, so then why don't you. Because it's funner to run around a ridiculous topic instead of solving rea problems? That is the problem with people like that, the world disintegrates out for under neath them because their too worried about the majority stepping on their rights. Well you know, there a reson theres a minority! So in human nature, and civilization, there comes a time where the majority must just say "too bad!" and forget about it.
Would you be willing to recite my pledge instead of yours? Even if you chose not to, would you be willing to stand silent with a group of people every day who did recite it? This isn't an issue of such trivial options. It's an issue of Constitutional law.
Evolution could be taught as you say, but it isn't. It is taught as the 'origin' of life. It would fit well into the chapter on the scientific process because that's all it really is. It's a mixture of facts and data gathered by the scientific process in which when you look at in in certain like forms a theory dubbed 'evolution'. You are denying the fact that it is being taught as fact, while it has always remained a theory?
Check this out...this appeared in an article on CNNfyi.com:
Alabama, Texas and Nebraska teach evolution as one possibility for how the universe was created. In Alabama, science textbooks include a warning to students that evolution is theory and not fact.
The article is available in its entirety at http://fyi.cnn.com/2000/fyi/teachers.ednews/09/27/classroom.evolution/
So, in some cases it may be presented as fact, but by no means it be being done in all cases.
While it is mostly hardcore leftwingers whom oppose something such as the pledge, hardcore rightwingers oppose things such as evolution in schools, yet it isn't being removed. The minority, (the ones with the bigger mouths) , simply whine the most and get their way the most.
You still don't understand the concept of individual rights. People on the left oppose the pledge because it violates the Consitution, which is the document that forms the basis for our government. People on the right oppose the theory of evolution (and the teaching thereof), developed through objective measurement, observation, and research, because it conflcts with their INDIVIDUAL, SUBJECTIVE, religious beliefs. Both cases describe an effort to keep the subjective, religious stuff out of the realm of government (as it should be), and educating students about a dynamic theory based on its academic merits.
I don't know what world your living in, but in a lot of the world, culture and relgion is one an the same. Look at the Isreal/Palestinian deal. Logically they could sperate chruch/state and live happily ever after. But their cultures are two totally different things, and their culture has always been dictated by their religion.
If I happen to be Christian, the mere fact that I might be residing in one culture or another does not make me non-Christian. Religious faith, ultimately, transcends culture. Culture can easily be transitory and temporal, faith cannot.
After all that has been said on this issue, here are some other interesting points to consider:
1. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally penned by a socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy. This socialist doctrine was eventually adopted by the U.S., and amended twice - once to replace the words "to my Flag" with "to the United States of America, and again to include the words "under god". The original stance while reciting the pledge included a closed fist that was extended outward from the chest- this was dropped at the onset of WWII due to its similarity to the Nazi salute during Hitler's reign.
2. Bush's suggestion that our rights come from God as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a complete misrepresentation. The words "under god" were added to the pledge after extensive lobbying by various religious groups that took place in 1954 amid the anti-communist fervor. The specific intent of these lobbyists was to incorporate a reference to the monotheistic, Christian god (emphasized by then President Eisenhower)- it's a reference, which interestingly, is incompatible with the ideas set forth in the DOI (especially with respect to its mention of "Nature's God").
3. Bush never attended a primary or secondary school that participated in the pledge. In fact, Bush didn't even seem to know the words to the pledge until he was strongly encouraged to memorize them by his campaign advisors during his 1988 campaign against political opponent Michael Dukakis. Bush apparently made an issue out of Dukakis' veto of a bill that would require public school teachers to recite the pledge, but not those in private schools.
So what's really going on here? A California court ruled unconstitutional a repurposed socialist doctrine that wasn't adopted by the U.S. government until 1942, amended in 1954 in a knee-jerk attempt to "differentiate" the U.S. from the atheistic Communists, having absolutely nothing to do with the actions or intent of our founding fathers 150 years prior (or the U.S. Constitution), often recited as a 'patriotic' ritual, and whose words seem to have been lost on the current president until a recent political campaign. Oh, the irony.
CubeFan973
28-Jun-02, 12:44
So one of you said that just because someone has lots of money, doesn't neccesarily mean that he has more rights? Have you ever heard of a hobo? I think they get thrown in jail for being hobos. But the rich stay out (mainly because they have enough money to bail themselves out). Doesn't make much sense!
Anyway, why are they trying to get rid of something simply because it's religous? They tried that with the Mormons once (that's why they outlawed bigamy/monogamy) , and I think that was pretty hypocritcal, too. They're supposed to be supporting religious freedom. Next we won't be saying on July 4th, "God Bless America!" That's really stupid!
Overextruded, you are doing exactly whait it is left wingers do, go to far measure and take lots of time to strees a trivial point. The thing with the pledge is not that big of deal, but you and others make it that way. As for reciteing your pledge, no we wouldn't recite it, just as much as you don't have to recite ours.
Everybodies rights are offended sometime or another. Even if their rights arn't offened now, someone ten years from now will change their beliefs just enough to be offended, then sue someone for it. If you don't like a type of food, don't eat it, if you don't like a saying, don't say it.
I believe the minority has just as much rights as the majority. But when it comes to a stiuation, in which the subject is trivial, and the affects caused by such on each side is minimal, then the majority wins. Lets say you have 100 people over for dinner, if 1 person don't like what you cooking, are you going to make the other 99 eat something different, or offer that 1 person something they might like.
How is it that I and many others suggest options that are more free, give choices, such as 'you don't have to say it' , 'you can come up with your own', 'evolution should be taught, but in a differnt light with other theories', etc.... But then people such as yourself, saying that it's a violation to the constitution, which stands for protecting this free nation, propse a definitive action that would limit and censor people (the majority) from the most common and trivial of beliefs. The government is not activley 'forcing' any religion on anybody, people are still just as free. But this crazy level of political correctness, I'm afraid would lead to a dangerous level of censorship and fear when it comes to freedom of speech.
okok. I propose a middle ground.
Change the word god to thor.
I think we can all agree to that.
change "God" to "the sky".
A nation under the sky.
doesn't sound bad at all and is politicaly correct.
Of course, A nation under Blender is nice too :D
Martin
sure. sky would rock my left foot aswell
change "God" to "the sky".
A nation under the sky.
doesn't sound bad at all and is politicaly correct.
Sorry, theeth. That statement is sure to offend someone. Not sure who (or why) --- but it will, just wait. :D
acasto, I'm curious as to what your definition of a "big deal" is. I think a "big deal" is generally considered to be an issue that people have strong opinions about and about which people debate long and hard. If the pledge thing is not a big deal, as you suggest, why do you argue it so fervently? If it's such a trivial point, why do resist change?
On the topic of evolution, I think the problem is in the actual implementation of the teaching. That is, teachers who want to push their thoughts on evolution on to their students (or do so without thinking about it). There is nothing wrong with teaching the facts on which a theory that much of the scientific community believes is true. If you plan on taking a job in the field of biology, you MUST understand (note: I didn't say "believe in") the theory of evolution, since it is the basis on which much of the field relies. (Actually the basis is with genetics, but the two are closely related.)
dwmitch is completely right, by the way :)
I consider it not a "big deal" because it dosn't hurt anyone or prevent them from having their rights. They still have their right of freedom of religion, no one is doing anything to prevent that. Why I agure about this, is because I'm worried that it could set a precedence which would lead to endless lawsuits, cost much money, and in the end, people or even freedom of speech could be affected.
Minorities do have rights, but consider this. Who pays for all this rediuculous bickering and lawsuits ??? the 'majority' of taxpayers. So why should tax dollars go to a ridiculous cause to make a few people's lives that much better for them? The minorities already have it the easiest in this contry. They are the first to get help, the first to be heard, the first to be on television or news.......... So when the majority supports this subject, and they have to pay for it, while still having the same mostly difficult lives, to appease the feeling of a small handful ?
The man who brought on this lawsuite claims that he dosn't want his daughter exposed to religion. What about EVERYTHING else a child is exposed to in school. Think about the list of priorities that a child would give to influence. Do you think the government, or some senseless saying would top that list, or do you think influences from freinds and family would? I suggest that any other kids in the shcool that where christian would expose and affect the child to a much higher degree than merely the word "God".
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 17:14
I would submit that the Theory of Evolution is a religion like any other.
What are the basic components of religion?
Webster's online dictionary defines religion a number of ways, but for the basis of this discussion, I think that the following two entries fit best.
"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
The Theory of Evolution has it's leader in Chuck Darwin. Those who believe in the ToE exercise faith in their beliefs and attempt to convince others to believe also, not unlike those who believe in a supernatural higher power attempt to convert others.
This is abuse of the English language. Charles Darwin was the one who formulated the theory, just as Einstein formulated the Theory of Relativity, just as so many other ambitious souls have made their own discoveries. Surely you're not suggesting that all of these are religions, are you? Religion is entirely subjective, and in no way adheres to the type of ongoing scrutiny and evaluation that characterize the various fields of scientific study.
The question of from where did we originate cannot be conclusively answered. Those who believe in the Theory of God (ToG) believe that a Higher Power caused the universe to come into being. The Bible is the only proof that they can offer for their beliefs, but the Bible was written by a number of authors who were not there for the event in question.
Exactly. Remember that Humankind has a rich history of various god-beliefs, and various stories that have been passed on from generation to generation. Suddenly, out of nowhere, *this* is the one. We're supposed to believe that a vicious, vindictive "god" gave up his "only begotten son" (born as a human, to a virgin, no less) in order to "save" us from our objectionable behavior, and then holds over our heads the prospect of everlasting damnation should we choose a different path (which includes, but is certainly not limited to, belief in another god).
What are some other characteristics of a religion? Well, I've never seen a Darwinian temple, have you? I've never seen a set of Darwinian commandments, nor a sermon proclaiming their righteousness over all other religions, have you? Darwinian evolution isn't concerned with the subjective morals (or the lack thereof) that we use to guide our behavior, is it? Do we 'pray' to Darwin, or any entity associated with Evolution, asking it to forgive us, or for favors, or for advice or insight? No. Has Darwinian evolution been the at root of any violence, proclaiming that its association with a higher power gives its followers a "god-given" right to pursue their interests (however barbaric they might be)? No.
So, perhaps one might be able to find a very general similarity based on how the word 'religion' is defined, but that's precisely where ends. In practice, they bear no similarity whatsoever.
[/quote]
ToG believers would contend that the Bible is essentially an interview with God, since He inspired it. But as they can't produce Him for a follow-up interview, or to affirm that the Bible is representative of the facts as He witnessed them, the Bible cannot be accepted as fact from a scientific standpoint. Those who subscribe to the ToE believe that all things were begun from a Big Bang. As with the Bible there is no supporting documentation available to support this theory.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is touted by the astrophysics community as a possible means by which the universe came into existence, while evolution's focus is the means by which successive generations of living organisms either adapt or perish - surivival of the fittest, genetic inheritance, etc.
Okay, ToG believer, if your god created everything, from where did he originate? Answer: My God is eternal, that is, existing out of time, so that
there is no beginning or end to my God.
Okay, Evolutionist, from where did the materials that blew up in the Big Bang originate? Answer: (sound of crickets chirping here)
This is the question that those who subscribe to ToE are unable, and quite unwilling to answer. The answer they don't want to give is that they don't know, they simply believe (have faith) that this is the way it happened.
All of this is irrelevant - Evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of the universe. The problem is, as I've pointed out several times, that its' not FAITH that drives acceptance of the theory of evolution. It's the fact that this is the best scientific explanation we have so far that is substantiated by the patterns that we see in nature. Are there some gaps? Sure. But the whole idea is that when and if discoveries are made that provide missing information, the theory will be modified accordingly. This is NOT true of a religion- a religion (and the faith that drives it) is not subject to amendment or modification.
The bottom line is that both theories require belief outside of available evidence. Neither can be proved. Period.
So we are left with faith. And a public (federally funded) school teaching one faith while excluding another is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think that too much time is spent on the issue. Both theories should be included in a subnote in the first chapter of science books, along with a section that says, "Since this is a question that science cannot answer, because the Scientific Method cannot be applied to any of the theories on the subject, it will not be discussed in this text. The reader is encouraged to seek out several of the hundreds of books on the subject and come to his or her own conclusions."
Again, the evolutionary 'belief' that you cite isn't faith - it's an acceptance of the current paradigm based on available evidence, UNTIL something better come along. It quite aptly illustrates the difference between science and religion. Religion isn't subject to modification based on new information. It is what it is. It's not a process, it's a static ideology. You can't compare the two.
[snip]
You are merely twisting the subject matter to fit your problem against religion and support evolution. What Xampersand says is right, but no matter what anyone else says overextruded, you will always always claim to be the superior.
And if you don't think that the Big Bang Theory has anything to do with evolution, I suggest you restudy the topic. This only supports what I mentioned earlier about evolutionists rarely know much of anything about the core sciences that make evolution even possible to begin with. You are arguing a case from with your own biased opinion, while all the rest of us suggest a middle ground, you only suggest YOUR ground. Where is the logic in that!
By definition, evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles (different versions of a gene) in a population over time.
I'm not seeing what this has to do with the Big Band theory.
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 17:58
Overextruded, you are doing exactly whait it is left wingers do, go to far measure and take lots of time to strees a trivial point. The thing with the pledge is not that big of deal, but you and others make it that way. As for reciteing your pledge, no we wouldn't recite it, just as much as you don't have to recite ours.
You've got to be kidding. When you say, "this isn't a big deal" you're essentially saying, "The U.S. Constitution isn't a big deal."
You neglected to answer the second question - would you be willing to stand in silence while everyone around you recited a pledge that you find ideologically offensive?
Everybodies rights are offended sometime or another. Even if their rights arn't offened now, someone ten years from now will change their beliefs just enough to be offended, then sue someone for it. If you don't like a type of food, don't eat it, if you don't like a saying, don't say it.
You still don't get it. It's not ABOUT whether or not I like saying it. It's about the government publicly endorsing one religion over another.
I believe the minority has just as much rights as the majority. But when it comes to a stiuation, in which the subject is trivial
Trivial to whom?
and the affects caused by such on each side is minimal, then the majority wins. Lets say you have 100 people over for dinner, if 1 person don't like what you cooking, are you going to make the other 99 eat something different, or offer that 1 person something they might like.
So now you're equating the Constitution, and one's religious faith to a dinner party? Please.
How is it that I and many others suggest options that are more free, give choices, such as 'you don't have to say it' , 'you can come up with your own', 'evolution should be taught, but in a differnt light with other theories', etc.... But then people such as yourself, saying that it's a violation to the constitution, which stands for protecting this free nation, propse a definitive action that would limit and censor people (the majority) from the most common and trivial of beliefs.
This is tyranny of the majority.
The government is not activley 'forcing' any religion on anybody, people are still just as free. But this crazy level of political correctness, I'm afraid would lead to a dangerous level of censorship and fear when it comes to freedom of speech.
I never said the government is "forcing" religion on anyone...YET. I said that with the Pledge of Allegiance, the government is publicly endorsing a monotheistic, Christian religion over all others - which is not only forbidden by the Consitution, but is basically tantamount to giving the finger to anyone who believes differently. There is an inherent danger in allowing the government to promote one religious ideology over another, and this is precisely why the First Amendment is as important as it is. If you don't agree with the Constitution, that's fine. But it *is* the law of the land, and it is your patriotic duty to defend it.
You are merely twisting the subject matter to fit your problem against religion and support evolution. What Xampersand says is right, but no matter what anyone else says overextruded, you will always always claim to be the superior.
And if you don't think that the Big Bang Theory has anything to do with evolution, I suggest you restudy the topic. This only supports what I mentioned earlier about evolutionists rarely know much of anything about the core sciences that make evolution even possible to begin with. You are arguing a case from with your own biased opinion, while all the rest of us suggest a middle ground, you only suggest YOUR ground. Where is the logic in that!
what middle ground have you suggested?
the only point ive seen from you is "I like it the way it is, screw the people that dont think so"
overextrude, I think what he meant by "trivial" was "trivial to him."
It's easy to stand by and watch someone's life get ruined while not even realizing that they are being hurt. Just because you can't see how in the world it might hurt someone doesn't mean that it's impossible or even far-fetched.
There are people out there today who think the entire notion of religion is nonsense and would have trouble understanding why people would get upset if the pledge of allegiance explicitly denounced Christianity and all of it's teachings. Imagine if those people were the majority. Would you be content to listen to that pledge everyday even though you're only 1% of the population? Of course not! You have rights!
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 18:21
[snip]
And if you don't think that the Big Bang Theory has anything to do with evolution, I suggest you restudy the topic. This only supports what I mentioned earlier about evolutionists rarely know much of anything about the core sciences that make evolution even possible to begin with. You are arguing a case from with your own biased opinion, while all the rest of us suggest a middle ground, you only suggest YOUR ground. Where is the logic in that!
I'd like to apologize for my inaccuracy, but before I do, I'd like you to show me at least two sources where Darwin mentions the Big Bang theory as part of his own work.
ray_theway
28-Jun-02, 19:09
As I read this thread, I wonder what the big fuss is over. If we keep our pledge intact, the way it is, "under God" and all, how would this hurt people of a different religion? Would it kill other people to sit respectfully if they don't want to say the pledge? I do not know of a government mandate that says every citizen of the United States must rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance verbatim. Our country has adopted this piece of verse to allow Americans to show their devotion to their country. Someone might say, "What if I don't have devotion for the US?" I say, "Then don't stand up!"
[ridiculous analogy]What if someone says they don't believe in the color red? Shall we change the red stripes of the flag to green, or perhaps a nice purple and azure plaid?[/ridiculous analogy]
Here's a more realistic analogy. I don't believe in evolution (though I don't want to get buried in a flame war over it), so I take what I learn in school with a grain of salt. The government, I assume, will do little or nothing to ban the teaching of evolution. What about the pledge is so different?
(please pardon all the rhetorical quiestions - my way of communicating what I see as the triviality of the pledge debate)
Deraj, so what, you try and argue with the definition of evolution = narrow minded argument.
Darwin didn't address, probably becaue he dosn't know a think about anything else. You tell me then if your so good at evolution, if something is created during a destructive process, and eveolution is dependent on time inorder for chance and necessity to take place, how would the event (the big bang) that set off the entire chain of events not have anything to do with it. The trajectories of the matter that was ejected from the blast, the cooling effect over time that it had on the universe. Oh ya, but I forgot, none of that mattesr, becasue if you know evolution, you know everything!
Green, it's not "I like it, screw the rest...." it's more like "90% like it, screw the rest....." The majority decided what they like, now instead of doing something they believe in (creatively), the minority simply whine about it.
Derja, I would be surprised if you could even tell one time someons life has ever been ruined by the words "....one nation under God...." You can't, can you???
I wouldn't be surprised if someone recommened changing the phrase to "..one nation under Darwin...."
Anonymous
28-Jun-02, 20:47
I thought some president added this "to God" line in the cold war just as an opposite to the russian communists who wanted to have nothing to do with god.
I think the judge who ruled it should be striped out is right acourding to american law, if it's harmfull or not is not the issue, it's against the law.
By the way I do believe it's good to separate relegion from law. Just take a look at arabic countries where Allah rules, how bad religion in gouverment can be.
-Joeri
I do agree, and I said last night too, it shouldn't have been there from the beginning, but now that it is, I think it could cause more bad than good to remove it. If you leave it in, nobodies gonna die and get ruined by it, if you take it out, it will be a precedence, something that will open the doors for people to sue for anything that offends them in the least bit.
Sure somebody wasn't thinking strait, but can anyone tell me what effect it will have to leave it in there? Can anyone give an example of how it will hurt someone? Can someone give me and example of how it will cause someone not to believe in what they want?
overextrude
28-Jun-02, 22:38
I do agree, and I said last night too, it shouldn't have been there from the beginning, but now that it is, I think it could cause more bad than good to remove it. If you leave it in, nobodies gonna die and get ruined by it, if you take it out, it will be a precedence, something that will open the doors for people to sue for anything that offends them in the least bit.
It's not that simple. If you allow the government to publicly endorse a particular, monotheistic, Christian religion (without offering the equal consideration to other religions), it effectively relegates them all to second-class status. If this doesn't sound like something that would appeal to YOU, then why should you expect anyone else to accept it? I don't understand how you can treat a constitutional issue with such casual abandon.
Sure somebody wasn't thinking strait, but can anyone tell me what effect it will have to leave it in there? Can anyone give an example of how it will hurt someone? Can someone give me and example of how it will cause someone not to believe in what they want?
It's a matter of principle, and a fairly significant one at that. Why not return the pledge to its original form? How will that hurt anyone? If anything, it will restore some integrity.
Of course you didn't give any examples, if the pledge is restored, the only thing to do will be to sit around and wait to see what's next. There is better things in the world to worry about.
I just saw on the news tonight, where education is now suffering from political correctness. Text books are being edited and censored, out of fear of being sued, history books especially. People and business are already afraid to voice their opinion due to groups like the NAACP and the ACLU. That's the last thing we need in the world today is everyone afraid to voice their opinion. Schools are already bad enough, so why don't we just take out all forms of culture, ideas, and indiviualism, and keep on turning out fine young robots. If this continues, what's going to be the difference bettwen a child and a clone? It is conflicts such as these that keep us human, keep us different, it would not be right if we were all alike.
Dittohead
29-Jun-02, 00:23
If we go around changing everything that's going to offend an individual or a group of people, the end result would offend someone else or another group of people. So how do we get to a pleasing end result?
Because I believe in God does this mean that quote “reasonable” people (atheists) are to be listened to and anyone who is has "got religion" is to be discounted as "unreasonable"? Isn't this against some sort of religious tolerance?
overextrude
29-Jun-02, 02:32
Of course you didn't give any examples, if the pledge is restored, the only thing to do will be to sit around and wait to see what's next. There is better things in the world to worry about.
I realize that you favor the status quo (even if it does violate the Constitution), but other than your own personal opinion, are any objective reasons that the pledge should remain as it is?
And I *am* interested - would you be willing to stand in silence as those around you recited something that you found ideologically offensive?
I just saw on the news tonight, where education is now suffering from political correctness. Text books are being edited and censored, out of fear of being sued, history books especially. People and business are already afraid to voice their opinion due to groups like the NAACP and the ACLU. That's the last thing we need in the world today is everyone afraid to voice their opinion. Schools are already bad enough, so why don't we just take out all forms of culture, ideas, and indiviualism, and keep on turning out fine young robots. If this continues, what's going to be the difference bettwen a child and a clone? It is conflicts such as these that keep us human, keep us different, it would not be right if we were all alike.
I'd like to respond to this in an intelligent manner, but without any specific examples, I'm not clear on exactly how the books are being censored. I have little respect for the educational book publishing industry in general, due to the sloppy verification of information, as well as the sleazy tactics used in securing contracts with school districts. But then again, I'm not sure how this relates to any of the points I've made.
I'm surprised, overextruded, when you can't answer a question or propose no examples, suddenly you forget how to use the 'quote' button like you always do. Why don't you look about 5 posts up, but I'm sure you know what I was talking about.
As for the school books, evolution wasn't on topic in the first place, I'm sorry to introduce something into argument that you can't quote and try to turn around. What a pitty!
But if you really want to know what it comes down to..... rediculous political correctness... too much whining, not enough problem fixing, and this is far from a REAL problem. If you think it is a real problem, and your rights are being intruded, then I suggest you need to think of other people in the world besides your self. So you have to here the word "God", some people would just die to have the luxury of any kind of civilized society, yet more people than should be, are just dieing.
So everyone who is complaining about their rights being obbused, go have your own little pitty session, cry about it, then come back to the real world.
overextrude
29-Jun-02, 03:18
I'm surprised, overextruded, when you can't answer a question or propose no examples, suddenly you forget how to use the 'quote' button like you always do. Why don't you look about 5 posts up, but I'm sure you know what I was talking about.
I quote messages as a courtesy to those reading them, so that they know exactly what I'm referring to when I respond. Thanks for pointing out my error, though. I'd like to ask that you show the same courtesy, because quite honestly, I have no idea which question you're referring to, or what kinds of examples you were expecting.
As for the school books, evolution wasn't on topic in the first place, I'm sorry to introduce something into argument that you can't quote and try to turn around. What a pitty!
But if you really want to know what it comes down to..... rediculous political correctness... too much whining, not enough problem fixing, and this is far from a REAL problem. If you think it is a real problem, and your rights are being intruded, then I suggest you need to think of other people in the world besides your self. So you have to here the word "God", some people would just die to have the luxury of any kind of civilized society, yet more people than should be, are just dieing.
So everyone who is complaining about their rights being obbused, go have your own little pitty session, cry about it, then come back to the real world.
How is it that I've "twisted" things? I think I've been fairly objective in my treatment of this issue. If not, I'm more than open to constructive criticism. Just show me where I've failed.
I didn't think I had to quote myself though.
How is it that I've "twisted" things? I think I've been fairly objective in my treatment of this issue. If not, I'm more than open to constructive criticism. Just show me where I've failed.
If you check what I said, I was implying a factual statement that can't be 'twisted', although I used the phrase "...try and turn around". I was not stateing that you 'twisted' it at all. I only put it in there to see if someone would try to twist it or not.
Deraj, so what, you try and argue with the definition of evolution = narrow minded argument.
Darwin didn't address, probably becaue he dosn't know a think about anything else. You tell me then if your so good at evolution, if something is created during a destructive process, and eveolution is dependent on time inorder for chance and necessity to take place, how would the event (the big bang) that set off the entire chain of events not have anything to do with it. The trajectories of the matter that was ejected from the blast, the cooling effect over time that it had on the universe. Oh ya, but I forgot, none of that mattesr, becasue if you know evolution, you know everything!
Green, it's not "I like it, screw the rest...." it's more like "90% like it, screw the rest....." The majority decided what they like, now instead of doing something they believe in (creatively), the minority simply whine about it.
Derja, I would be surprised if you could even tell one time someons life has ever been ruined by the words "....one nation under God...." You can't, can you???
I wouldn't be surprised if someone recommened changing the phrase to "..one nation under Darwin...."
Hm.
I once had a disscusion with Twingy about majority.
He thought that in the future there would only be one country and the majority would decide on everything. The minority would not get anything through unless the majority wanted them to.
This idea scared me quite a bit and i really want to say that I am in no way in favor of letting the majority have total controll over what happens.
Now correct me if im wrong, but isnt the us legal system built in such a way that the majority cannot overrun the minority in ways such as this?
Where the government favors one type of person while ignoring others?
Again, that would be the case if this was active policy, but it's not, it's traditional. Allowing this to be in the pledge in no way signifies that you must choose one religion, or any at all, over another. If a person is so weak as to be affected by a word, then they probably don't understand the word to begin with. And if a person is able to understand the word, then they are also probably able to make their own decisions.
If someone is influenced by the pledge, then it is because they are way too influenable. Like I said earlier, there is much stronger influences around everyday. To make such a big deal of this one is trivial. No one every answered the question, "did anyone ever get hurt?", I would even like to know how someone could be hurt by this. Becaue unless it is actively affecting someone, it remains nothing more than tradition. And people are just looking for something to complain about.
Again, that would be the case if this was active policy, but it's not, it's traditional. Allowing this to be in the pledge in no way signifies that you must choose one religion, or any at all, over another. If a person is so weak as to be affected by a word, then they probably don't understand the word to begin with. And if a person is able to understand the word, then they are also probably able to make their own decisions.
If someone is influenced by the pledge, then it is because they are way too influenable. Like I said earlier, there is much stronger influences around everyday. To make such a big deal of this one is trivial. No one every answered the question, "did anyone ever get hurt?", I would even like to know how someone could be hurt by this. Becaue unless it is actively affecting someone, it remains nothing more than tradition. And people are just looking for something to complain about.
Well as I said before. the reputation of the whole usa and the people in it has gotten hurt by it in the eyes of all the other western countries.
Well as I said before. the reputation of the whole usa and the people in it has gotten hurt by it in the eyes of all the other western countries.
But then again, all the other western countries have had their fair share of problems also, either current of in the past.
Well as I said before. the reputation of the whole usa and the people in it has gotten hurt by it in the eyes of all the other western countries.
But then again, all the other western countries have had their fair share of problems also, either current of in the past.
Okie. If you dont mind having less respect then you could have when traveling, thats fine by me.
Okie. If you dont mind having less respect then you could have when traveling, thats fine by me.
That would be ignorant of us to mind though, why would I care if it's an unavoidable part of histry in which every country goes through. You can't please everyone, and plus, this country is still very young.
Okie. If you dont mind having less respect then you could have when traveling, thats fine by me.
That would be ignorant of us to mind though, why would I care if it's an unavoidable part of histry in which every country goes through. You can't please everyone, and plus, this country is still very young.
Uhm. unavoidable?
You can stop it right now. (well, not you, but the courts)
The difference between the us and other countries about this is that the us exports a whole lot of movies that display not only this thing but an abnormal obsession with the us flag. (ie alot of people know about it, even people that dont care)
(/me allways finds it fun when people care that other people burn the us flag, its just some colored cloth)
But anyways. As you said the rest of the world has had its own problems in these kinds of events. Especially in Europe, since then we have corrected ourselfs. This is exactly why we find the us actions so strange about this.
why does the minority have so much power in a society that is supposed to be governed by majority rules?
Actually, we are not a true democracy, and that’s a good thing. The Majority cannot run all over the Minority because of it.
It is easier now days for a single colored male with a lower GPA to get into college than and white male with a higher GPA
Actually, that is against the law. It is only preferable, and in some places made into law, that if one must chose between a disadvantaged person and one who is not, but all else is equal, that the disadvantaged person should be chosen. Using any form of quota is in fact against the law. I think most disadvantaged people appreciate that, since they are probably sick of getting the “ he only has this job because he’s black” or “ she got the job because they are pushing for more women” When in fact that person may very well have scored much higher than the competition.
the usa is fucked up.
we are not going to be able to help you change it.
No, it is not. It is simply constantly being challenged, as it has since it was formed, and it continues to show how strong it is by addressing everything thrown at it. Sometimes to the ridiculous, often to the betterment of the people.
it is getting ridiculous with the advantages certain "minorities"(which by the way ARE becoming the majority) get...... but, i dont care, let em have it... i just wanna live then die, and see whats next! (better be something good, im not stayin alive fer nuthing, it sucks ass here )
I know how you feel, the media really plays that up. But 1. We are all minorities at one time or another, and that is when we appreciate the thoroughness of our government and 2. Being young is the pits, it always has been. Older people who say that it was “the time of their lives” are full of it, LOL. My grandfather said “life begins at forty” My Mother, his daughter in law, said he was right. Every year that goes by is better for me, so I’m looking forward to the big 40 ;o) (Got another birthday on Monday, and I’m looking forward to celebrating, don’t mind getting older one bit!!) So hang in there, it’ll get lots better, just grab life by the balls, and do what you want to do as much as you can!
and all that these groups running around nit-picking does is cause trouble for everyone.
Ah, but it stimulates all of us, does it not? Everyone is talking about this. It makes people think beyond what they normally think about, and that may be a good thing…. You know…. Like wrapping your towels in ribbons before putting them in the linen closet? Or always using that special copper egg beater, only available in some remote town in Italy, and never ever using those common ones available at local stores?
BTW, we are not letting the minority run the show, per se. The Constitution is running the show. If the majority is on the wrong side of the Constitution and the minority points it out and asks for a correction, then I would say things are functioning exactly as they are supposed to.
We NEED stuff like this. Debates like this. They're what keep up thinking and striving for a better system. None of us should ever be content.
ER… yah,… that’s what I meant to say
Wait a sec, this is way too long to read through, I just want to reinforce that I love this country. I love the fact that nuts bring up every kind of issue they can think of, so we are all constantly challenged. I love the fact that we are made up of so many people from every corner of the world, yet, despite the challenges, seem to remain “American” through it all. Sure, we are coming up on our biggest challenge, with a more diverse population than ever before, but I find, when talking to people from all over the world, that they love this country for the same reasons I love it, and the same reasons my parents loved it and chose it to be their home. “There is no place else in the world that would have taken us in and allowed us to get a job, buy a home, grow, prosper and live” as a friend of mine said. I feel the same way. There are always those who don’t realize what a wonderful country it is, and aren’t given the same opportunities, due to family situations, economic and social situations. Those people have to be extra ordinary to succeed. But they can succeed if they want to. Life does not guarantee fairness, unfortunately, that can never be.
Blah blah blah, I’ll shut up now.
Love ya all, Ingie
“There is no place else in the world that would have taken us in and allowed us to get a job, buy a home, grow, prosper and live”
Now. correct me if im wrong. but doesnt canada both bring in more imigrants and give them a higher standard of living then the us does?
I think this is true for many countries.
The us doesnt give you alot of slack unless you work hard for it.
You say people think the US is a joke, here in the US everyone thinks Canada's immigration policies are a joke. Even one of the former people in charge in Canada said just about anyone can get in unattended!
You say people think the US is a joke, here in the US everyone thinks Canada's immigration policies are a joke. Even one of the former people in charge in Canada said just about anyone can get in unattended!
I saw that on 60 minutes :)
Im all for free imigration aslong as the population in the country doesnt mind.
It can get quite ugly if the imigrants are unwanted.
Well, immigration can be extremely helpful to the economy in the right situation. I do think there needs to be some type of intelligence based system, to try and identify and possible detain/track any known criminals, terrorists, etc....
If just one person comes in with a bomb or biological weapon, that could undermine the positive that all the other immigrants have brought to a region. That is a touchy situation because it allows just a few people to adversely and unfairly affect the economy of many, in which they worked hard to create.
I think they should keep the "under god" stuff in
just to shut acasto up!
Chris
Xampersand
29-Jun-02, 12:41
Wow. I mean really, Wow. I'm impressed by how (just about) everybody is conducting themselves with regard to this debate.
Green wrote:
/me allways finds it fun when people care that other people burn the us flag, its just some colored cloth)
Perhaps it is that to you, but to a great number of us here in the US, the flag means more than the cloth itself. The flag has stood for a particular ideology in the USA.
I'm trying to chose words carefully, because I don't want to offend anyone who is not in the US...We as a nation have devised a system of government/society that we feel is the best possible system. Not perfect, and still a work in progress, but the best possible basis for a government/society. Now for anyone who lives outside of the US, you probably feel that your country has the best system. And that is how it should be. Again, I stress that I'm not saying our system of government is the only way to run a country. Far from it. But I am saying that our system here in the USA is the best system for the USA. One way we signify that system that we've worked on for 200 years by our flag. We're proud of the system, and so we transfer that pride (appreciation) to the flag.
Even some of those who burn the flag in this country have a strong passion for the flag (In many cases, flag burners do so because they want to make a strong statement regarding their grievances, thus "the very insignia of our nation is being destroyed by this injustice.").
NOTE: While I don't endorse flag burning, and, in fact, I can't think of a situation where I would ever do it, I can understand how someone might arrive to the conclusion that such a protest could draw significant attention to the issue at hand.
If you live outside the US, and you don't see why it's such a big deal, that's cool. It's not your flag, why should you care? I certainly don't expect you to understand it, any more than some of our family members should understand why we Blenderheads get so hyper about a new Community Journal (thanks for the new one, guys!). It's not their deal.
Regarding those who are non-citizens of the US in other countries who burn the US flag as a symbol of hatred, here's an analogy: what if someone went on the evening news and took a photograph of your girlfriend and burned it, saying, "Die, Green's girlfriend! Die!"
Note: I don't know you, Green, if you're married, single, whatever. I'm speaking of a hypothetical girlfriend. Substitute "significant other" if you like.
They didn't really burn her, just a symbol of her. But I daresay you'd find that to be objectionable behavior, because she means something to you. Such an open contempt for a representation of your girlfriend would be patently offensive to you.
I certainly have nothing against your girlfriend, but I don't love her. I don't know anything about her. However, if I saw someone burning a picture of your girlfriend simply because they didn't like her, I'd be offended, too. Not because your girlfriend means so much to me, but because I would suppose she means something to you.
overextrude
29-Jun-02, 13:05
Again, that would be the case if this was active policy, but it's not, it's traditional.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The change to the pledge was the result of a law passed by Congress. If this doesn't constitute 'active policy,' then perhaps you can provide some examples of what does.
Allowing this to be in the pledge in no way signifies that you must choose one religion, or any at all, over another.
I've already explained the problem several times, but I'll do it again. The law passed by Congress in 1954 to add the words 'under god' to the Pledge of Allegiance puts the government in a position where it is not only incorporating religious ideology into public policy, but publicly endorsing a single, monotheistic, Christian religion. CAN YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS? If these words are so meaningless and so inconsequential, then you won't have any qualms about my suggestion that we change the words "under god," to "under Allah". After all, they're only words, and you're not being forced to say them.
If a person is so weak as to be affected by a word, then they probably don't understand the word to begin with. And if a person is able to understand the word, then they are also probably able to make their own decisions.
It's not just 'a word'. Words have meaning. Words that describe religious beliefs, in particular, have been used throughout history to justify some of the most barbaric acts imaginable. Hitler, in fact, justified his actions by claiming that he was observing God's injunction to cleanse the world of vermin.
If someone is influenced by the pledge, then it is because they are way too influenable. Like I said earlier, there is much stronger influences around everyday. To make such a big deal of this one is trivial. No one every answered the question, "did anyone ever get hurt?", I would even like to know how someone could be hurt by this. Becaue unless it is actively affecting someone, it remains nothing more than tradition. And people are just looking for something to complain about.
I've explained this again and again. It has nothing to do with how 'influenable' someone might be. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone may have their feelings hurt. It has nothing to do with whether or not the act of saying the pledge (or not) results in any physical harm. The bottom line is that a congressional act with a specific intent to incorporate a reference to a single, monotheistic, Christian god into a publicly ritualistic (and sometimes mandated) display of 'patriotism', was in violation of its own constitution. It's a matter of law, and it needs to be corrected.
Anonymous
29-Jun-02, 13:17
hear hear.
SkyWriter
29-Jun-02, 13:30
I think they should keep the "under god" stuff in
just to shut acasto up!
Chris
i would rather have green shut up at this point instead. but i never get anything i want.
overextrude
29-Jun-02, 13:35
I thought some president added this "to God" line in the cold war just as an opposite to the russian communists who wanted to have nothing to do with god.
That's exactly what happened. And, it was the result, some might say, of then President Eisenhower caving in to the religious lobbyists (the Knights of Columbus, in particular), who were advocating this change.
I think the judge who ruled it should be striped out is right acourding to american law, if it's harmfull or not is not the issue, it's against the law.
Yes. Odd, though, that the judge, bowing to public pressure has rendered his ruling unenforceable at this point. I find this rather bizarre, since it is public opinion that can easily lead to the infringement of constitutional rights in the first place.
I think they should keep the "under god" stuff in
just to shut acasto up!
Chris
i would rather have green shut up at this point instead. but i never get anything i want.
Yes. I am aware that you don’t like me expressing criticism of the usa.
But I find it really fun to do so and will continue.
And hey. Guess what?
Last night in my dreams you offended me in this thread. I thought that was fun both in the dream and when I woke up (im sure you will find something fun to say about this)
I agree
Who are you?
Why should I care about what you think?
Do you care or did you just feel like saying what you wanted?
I dont really agree with some of your views of the us considering i live here but i know its your opinion so i respect it I just wish you would research your opinions a little bit better before you start talking about the us.but thats just my opinion.and what is it any of your buisness who i am?
SkyWriter
29-Jun-02, 14:01
(im sure you will find something fun to say about this)
I find your new found ability to spell english, and construct resonable sentences evidence that you're putting more into this than you let on. Where's the old inarticulate swedish trailer trash rash we used to know and love?
I dont really agree with some of your views of the us considering i live here but i know its your opinion so i respect it I just wish you would research your opinions a little bit better before you start talking about the us.but thats just my opinion.and what is it any of your buisness who i am?
Because i dont think you are who you claim to be.
But hey. You can be you. I just wish you would research yourself better before creating yourself.
(im sure you will find something fun to say about this)
I find your new found ability to spell english, and construct resonable sentences evidence that you're putting more into this than you let on. Where's the old inarticulate swedish trailer trash rash we used to know and love?
Id take inarticulate over hard to understand any day of the week.
If you only knew how much traffic you generate for dictionary.com you would be amazed :)
SkyWriter
29-Jun-02, 14:11
Id take inarticulate over hard to understand any day of the week.
it's the same thing you bonehead.
(a note to the uninitiated, this is merely carefree banter, no malice is intended)
Your words make absolutly no sense at all and how could i be making myself up?The past few replys ive seen on your part all you know how to do is critisise people on what there views are and i dont know what its like in sweden so its none of my buisness to make any characterizations on just how you ack.if you really want to know who i am why dont you ask nicely for a change?
sandy, shut up, it was just getting fun.
Your words make absolutly no sense at all and how could i be making myself up?The past few replys ive seen on your part all you know how to do is critisise people on what there views are and i dont know what its like in sweden so its none of my buisness to make any characterizations on just how you ack.if you really want to know who i am why dont you ask nicely for a change?
hahahaha
you are funny.
Id take inarticulate over hard to understand any day of the week.
it's the same thing you bonehead.
(a note to the uninitiated, this is merely carefree banter, no malice is intended)
nah, really?
oh crap then.
/me goes to hide under a rock
what are you talking about? I have no part in what they are saying.I could really care less i was writing back to green what he said to me about 3 or 4 bars up.
what are you talking about? I have no part in what they are saying.I could really care less i was writing back to green what he said to me about 3 or 4 bars up.
Im talking about cheese.
What are you talking about?
You care about cheese right?
Everyone does. Even kib.
what are you talking about? I have no part in what they are saying.I could really care less i was writing back to green what he said to me about 3 or 4 bars up.
Im talking about cheese.
What are you talking about?
You care about cheese right?
Everyone does. Even kib.
Cheese is being talked about in this topic? Oh my, perhaps I better lock this topic! :)
Maybe Green and acasto should get married. They already have the "old married couple" bickering down pat. :D
Maybe Green and acasto should get married. They already have the "old married couple" bickering down pat. :D
I’m already married to my cousin. So that wouldn’t work.
You care about cheese right?
Everyone does. Even kib.
Not true, I hear it's his one secret weekness!
Some folks even call it "Kib-tonite"!
Chris
Xampersand
29-Jun-02, 14:52
The Theory of Evolution has it's leader in Chuck Darwin. Those who believe in the ToE exercise faith in their beliefs and attempt to convince others to believe also, not unlike those who believe in a supernatural higher power attempt to convert others.
This is abuse of the English language.
I disagree. Darwin came up with a theory that has later been developed into a religion (A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.)
Charles Darwin was the one who formulated the theory, just as Einstein formulated the Theory of Relativity, just as so many other ambitious souls have made their own discoveries. Surely you're not suggesting that all of these are religions, are you? Religion is entirely subjective, and in no way adheres to the type of ongoing scrutiny and evaluation that characterize the various fields of scientific study.
No, I'm not suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is a religion. The difference is that the Theory of Evolution excludes the Theory of Creation. Each theory requires faith (as I stated before) in the abscence of proof. That is why I call both of them "theories." ToE is subjective also, and is propogated despite the fact that it cannot be proved to be true, which is a characteristic of religion.
My objective in this debate is not to convince you to join my particular set of beliefs, but to convince you to agree that a belief system which is contrary to a religion, and based on non-provable dogma is also a religion.
What are some other characteristics of a religion? Well, I've never seen a Darwinian temple, have you? I've never seen a set of Darwinian commandments, nor a sermon proclaiming their righteousness over all other religions, have you?
You're funnelling your characteristics through the Judeo/Christian religion, here. The fact that Agnostics don't gather in a particular place, or have a set of Agnostic commandments does not mean that Agnosticism is not a religious system.
Darwinian evolution isn't concerned with the subjective morals (or the lack thereof) that we use to guide our behavior, is it? Do we 'pray' to Darwin, or any entity associated with Evolution, asking it to forgive us, or for favors, or for advice or insight? No. Has Darwinian evolution been the at root of any violence, proclaiming that its association with a higher power gives its followers a "god-given" right to pursue their interests (however barbaric they might be)? No.
So, perhaps one might be able to find a very general similarity based on how the word 'religion' is defined, but that's precisely where ends. In practice, they bear no similarity whatsoever.
Again, I disagree. The nature of religion is that it holds to a core of beliefs to the exclusion of other systems of belief in the abscence of proof. Let's say three people are in a room.
Person 1: God made the earth. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Person 2: You are wrong. Allah made the earth. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Person 3: You are wrong. I don't believe that either one of them did it. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Each of the three has a particular belief with regard to the issue, and person 3 can't prove what he believes any more than the other two. His religion is (at least partially) that he excludes the other religions.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.
All of this is irrelevant - Evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of the universe.
Actually, it does. According to ToE, the "primordial soup" from which the first living organisms sprang forth was brought about by the heating and cooling process caused by the initial explosion which created everything.
You may be familiar with Stanley Miller, who, in 1950, conducted an experiment to attempt to re-create the conditions theorized by a leading scientist, A. I. Oparin. The basic theory was that minerals (which are non-organic) when heated, produced organic compounds upon cooling. His findings were not that life began this way, but that IF the conditions were as was postulated, organic compounds could have been produced.
All of this still does not answer the question, "Where did those conditions originate?" To believe the ToE, you must accept BY FAITH that those conditions did exist. One shouldn't remove the origin of the theory from the conclusion of the theory, but if you want to go at it that way, then you still have to exercise proof-absent belief (faith), it just occurs later in the chain of events.
The problem is, as I've pointed out several times, that its' not FAITH that drives acceptance of the theory of evolution. It's the fact that this is the best scientific explanation we have so far that is substantiated by the patterns that we see in nature. Are there some gaps? Sure. But the whole idea is that when and if discoveries are made that provide missing information, the theory will be modified accordingly. This is NOT true of a religion- a religion (and the faith that drives it) is not subject to amendment or modification.
Actually, many religions (Roman Catholicism, for one) undergo constant modifications. If you were able to modify the basic tenet of Creation by God with further evidence, it would be cause for a change in the religious Creation paradigm. However, no evolutionist has been able to come up with proof to discount the Biblical account of creation. I submit that it is open to change, but only on the basis of proof.
The bottom line is that both theories require belief outside of available evidence. Neither can be proved. Period.
So we are left with faith. And a public (federally funded) school teaching one faith while excluding another is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think that too much time is spent on the issue. Both theories should be included in a subnote in the first chapter of science books, along with a section that says, "Since this is a question that science cannot answer, because the Scientific Method cannot be applied to any of the theories on the subject, it will not be discussed in this text. The reader is encouraged to seek out several of the hundreds of books on the subject and come to his or her own conclusions."
Again, the evolutionary 'belief' that you cite isn't faith - it's an acceptance of the current paradigm based on available evidence, UNTIL something better come along. It quite aptly illustrates the difference between science and religion. Religion isn't subject to modification based on new information. It is what it is. It's not a process, it's a static ideology. You can't compare the two.
The ToE "acceptance of the current paradigm" is absolutely contrary to the available evidence, because ToE cannot be replicated and observed. Replication and observation form the fundamental basis for science. Thus, in the abscence of evidence, Evolutionists hold to their belief, which is religion.
As with other religions, Evolutionism is also static, in that it does not change unless new data are introduced. Nevertheless, Evolutionists hold to their theoretical dogma despite the arguments made by the dogma of other religions. Which is then, by it's nature, a set of beliefs based on metaphysics (outside the physical, or evidentiary world), what we commonly call religion.
X&
"Yesterday I shot an elephant in my pajamas...how he got in my pajamas I'll never know." --Groucho Marx
Im already married to my cousin. So that wouldn't work.
Ahh. I thought only european royalty engaged in that kind of thing.
Do you live in Arkansas part time? :D
Im already married to my cousin. So that wouldn't work.
Ahh. I thought only european royalty engaged in that kind of thing.
Do you live in Arkansas part time? :D
Yeah. All my trailer-trash friends live there.
Yeah. All my trailer-trash friends live there.
Friends of yours?
http://www.drbukk.com/images9/cebina.jpg
overextrude
29-Jun-02, 20:07
No, I'm not suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is a religion. The difference is that the Theory of Evolution excludes the Theory of Creation. Each theory requires faith (as I stated before) in the abscence of proof. That is why I call both of them "theories." ToE is subjective also, and is propogated despite the fact that it cannot be proved to be true, which is a characteristic of religion.
I'm not sure why it matters whether or not the Theory of Evolution excludes the doctrine associated with a particular religious institution. Isn't that the role of scientific discovery, to exclude those elements which do not appear to have a viable connection to the proposed theory (or hypothesis)? I think its disingenuous to say that "just because we have no direct, indisputable proof that one theory is true, we have to devote every competing theory equal consideration." As I've said, I there is a big difference between saying, "this is what we believe to be true at this time based on what we know," and this is what *is* true because it's mandated by our religious doctrine." The former is subject to change, the latter is not. The former is dynamic and open, the latter is not. This is why the Theory of Evolution is cannot be accurately classified as a religion- to learn about the theory, or even assert that it has merit is not to have faith, but to acknowledge that it is a work in progress.
My objective in this debate is not to convince you to join my particular set of beliefs, but to convince you to agree that a belief system which is contrary to a religion, and based on non-provable dogma is also a religion.
This will not be easy. First and foremost, I'm not clear on your reason for rejecting the differences between faith and science that I've described. Let's start there and work forward.
You're funnelling your characteristics through the Judeo/Christian religion, here. The fact that Agnostics don't gather in a particular place, or have a set of Agnostic commandments does not mean that Agnosticism is not a religious system.
I've used a Judeo/Christian model because it is the intermixing of the Christian faith with public policy (in violation of the Constition) that has been the crux of this discussion. Even so, I'm glad you mentioned this, as it gets into some of the more esoteric aspects of this issue. When does something take on the qualities of a 'system'? And once it is objectively established that a 'system' of some kind exists, what qualities must be present in order to deem it a 'religious system'?
Again, I disagree. The nature of religion is that it holds to a core of beliefs to the exclusion of other systems of belief in the abscence of proof. Let's say three people are in a room.
Person 1: God made the earth. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Person 2: You are wrong. Allah made the earth. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Person 3: You are wrong. I don't believe that either one of them did it. If you think anything else, you're wrong.
Each of the three has a particular belief with regard to the issue, and person 3 can't prove what he believes any more than the other two. His religion is (at least partially) that he excludes the other religions.
I think we need to take a step back, and examine the meaning of the word 'religion'. You seem to be attrbuting a meaning that I've been unable to verify. Webster, for example, defines the meaning of its root (religio), in the following manner:
from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice...
This would suggest right off the bat that it implies some level of supernatural involvement...a god-figure, a spiritual exercise, a god-related belief system of some kind, an experience outside the realm of the physical world, etc. And, by logical extension, use of the word 'religion' to describe a theory that excludes the supernatural element, would seem inappropriate. The mere fact that I might not be able to offer immediate proof, does not make it a religious activity.
Actually, it does. According to ToE, the "primordial soup" from which the first living organisms sprang forth was brought about by the heating and cooling process caused by the initial explosion which created everything.
You may be familiar with Stanley Miller, who, in 1950, conducted an experiment to attempt to re-create the conditions theorized by a leading scientist, A. I. Oparin. The basic theory was that minerals (which are non-organic) when heated, produced organic compounds upon cooling. His findings were not that life began this way, but that IF the conditions were as was postulated, organic compounds could have been produced.
I extend to you then, the same challenge I extended to acasto: please show me (or at least cite) references by Darwin, in his own work, that rely on (or even mention) the Big Bang theory. I maintain that the Big Bang theory deals with a set of conditions that far preceeded Darwin's scope of interest.
All of this still does not answer the question, "Where did those conditions originate?" To believe the ToE, you must accept BY FAITH that those conditions did exist. One shouldn't remove the origin of the theory from the conclusion of the theory, but if you want to go at it that way, then you still have to exercise proof-absent belief (faith), it just occurs later in the chain of events.
This isn't necessarily true. I could just as easily accept the fact that I have not yet found a suitable explanation. That does not mean that I have accepted anything by faith. Rather, it means that I have decided to withhold judgement.
Actually, many religions (Roman Catholicism, for one) undergo constant modifications. If you were able to modify the basic tenet of Creation by God with further evidence, it would be cause for a change in the religious Creation paradigm. However, no evolutionist has been able to come up with proof to discount the Biblical account of creation. I submit that it is open to change, but only on the basis of proof.
Religious institutions have been known (especially the Roman Catholic church) to be large, plodding, bureaucracies, whose decisions (and resultant change) are deliberate and slow. How long did it take the Catholic church to admit, for example, that its views on planetary rotation were wrong?
The bottom line is that both theories require belief outside of available evidence. Neither can be proved. Period.
So we are left with faith.
One side has faith in their religion, the other has faith that they will prove or disprove their theory based on further evidence. Ok...I'll buy that.
And a public (federally funded) school teaching one faith while excluding another is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think that too much time is spent on the issue. Both theories should be included in a subnote in the first chapter of science books, along with a section that says, "Since this is a question that science cannot answer, because the Scientific Method cannot be applied to any of the theories on the subject, it will not be discussed in this text. The reader is encouraged to seek out several of the hundreds of books on the subject and come to his or her own conclusions."
...The ToE "acceptance of the current paradigm" is absolutely contrary to the available evidence because ToE cannot be replicated and observed. Replication and observation form the fundamental basis for science. Thus, in the abscence of evidence, Evolutionists hold to their belief, which is religion
[snip]
Nevertheless, Evolutionists hold to their theoretical dogma despite the arguments made by the dogma of other religions. Which is then, by it's nature, a set of beliefs based on metaphysics (outside the physical, or evidentiary world), what we commonly call religion.
This illustrates one other little sticking point. By definition, theories do not require proof, and their often abstract nature allows them to exist quite amiably within the realm of the metaphysical. But when you start equating 'metaphysical' with 'religion', it simply isn't an accurate representation. Much of science relies on the metaphysical, and there are many instances where direct proof is unattainable, but fairly reasonable conclusions can be drawn based on inference. Consider the role that metaphysics played in our knowlege of space and celestial bodies. All of it started out as theory - in the metaphysical realm - and through increasingly detailed measurement (over a couple thousand years), as well as iterative theoretical refinement, worked its way into the physical 'evidentiary' realm. What started out as completely rediculous notions by today's standards, ended up much more refined (and ever more complex) understanding we have today. To suggest that there is any link between the initial and ongoing stages of investigation and religion, I think, is somewhat misleading. They are simply not the same animal.
Overextruded, I answered your challenge about Darwin mentioning the Big Bang in his work. Answer me this then, when you are working on a particluart idea lets say, is ties and connections to other fields immediately known, or most likely found out after the fact? Darwin had the "Theory of Evolution", he was not a physisit. If you can completely deny that the physical involvement of the Big Bang, which set the stage for all following events, then your vision of science as a whole is limited to only evolutionary biology.
I have said over and over again that most evolutionist don't know much about the core science that even make it possible. The longer this thread goes on, the more my thoughts are supported. Evolution Theory is an idea, describing a process in which life came about. Now this is basic logic, for a large and complex process to occur, there must ly and underneath and equally and even greater complexity. Look at particle physics, you learn about one level, only to find an even greater mystery within. Try and realize the universe, and even life itself as being fractal in nature and see what you come up with!
Your disconnecting the theory of evolution from the other theories is like describing how babies grow up but not how they're conceived and born. The uinivers is a comlex system of ties and interconnects, it seems more and more that most people don't understand this.
Xampersand
30-Jun-02, 01:22
I'm not sure why it matters whether or not the Theory of Evolution excludes the doctrine associated with a particular religious institution. Isn't that the role of scientific discovery, to exclude those elements which do not appear to have a viable connection to the proposed theory (or hypothesis)?
The reason it matters is that my initial post stated that I believe the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, a religion. If that is true, then Evolution being taught in federally funded schools would be unconstitutional.
Evolutionists cite the writings of Darwin, among others, as the basis for their beliefs. Those who subscribe to the Theory of Creation cite the writers of the Bible as the basis for their beliefs. Since neither camp's document can be verified, each requires its believers to adhere to the writings of their particular camp, to the exclusion of any other camp.
I think its disingenuous to say that "just because we have no direct, indisputable proof that one theory is true, we have to devote every competing theory equal consideration."
I concur. I'm sure there's somebody out there who still thinks the earth rests on a series of tortises of increasing size. I don't want every theory taught. I just want some intellectual responsibility to be exercised by the educational community. Teaching religion as scientific fact with no support is what is disingenuous.
As I've said, I there is a big difference between saying, "this is what we believe to be true at this time based on what we know," and this is what *is* true because it's mandated by our religious doctrine." The former is subject to change, the latter is not. The former is dynamic and open, the latter is not. This is why the Theory of Evolution is cannot be accurately classified as a religion- to learn about the theory, or even assert that it has merit is not to have faith, but to acknowledge that it is a work in progress.
Ah, but again, the core of evolution is to remove God from the picture, making Evolutionism a system of belief with regard to spirtuality and the supernatural.
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." --Michael Ruse, a professor in the departments of Philosophy and Zoology at Guelph. Professor Ruse has written numerous books and has been a leading authority on Evolution since the mid-1970s.
"For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous ... . Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." --Julian Huxley, scientist and biologist, whose work was inspired by Darwin.
I extend to you then, the same challenge I extended to acasto: please show me (or at least cite) references by Darwin, in his own work, that rely on (or even mention) the Big Bang theory. I maintain that the Big Bang theory deals with a set of conditions that far preceeded Darwin's scope of interest.
Darwin does not mention the Big Bang Theory. However, the fact that Mr. Darwin stopped short in his theory of explaining the origin of life does not negate the fact that the modern ToE relies heavily on Big Bang. And the Big Bang Theory is itself based on a supposed supernatural event: A spontaneous explosion the origin of which is neither explained or supported.
I could just as easily accept the fact that I have not yet found a suitable explanation. That does not mean that I have accepted anything by faith. Rather, it means that I have decided to withhold judgement.
This is the problem with Evolution. It pretends to be science, but it's not. Evolutionists buy into the ToE without any way to back it up. "It's science," Evolutionists say, but there is no scientific method applied to its research.
Essentially, you're saying "We can't yet prove why we believe it, we just do."
Why is it so difficult for you to admit your belief is a faith (non-evidentiary belief)?
Religious institutions have been known (especially the Roman Catholic church) to be large, plodding, bureaucracies, whose decisions (and resultant change) are deliberate and slow. How long did it take the Catholic church to admit, for example, that its views on planetary rotation were wrong?
Slow change is still change. You said that it was static. By your own admission, it is not. The fact that the Roman Catholic church was "deliberate and slow" only serves to bolster the idea that the religion is attempting to avoid jumping to rash conclusions.
The fact that ToE is volatile (Look a tooth! It's evidence of a prehistoric man! No wait, it's a pig's tooth, never mind.) only undermines its authenticity, but it doesn't negate the fact that adherance to the theory requires faith.
One side has faith in their religion, the other has faith that they will prove or disprove their theory based on further evidence. Ok...I'll buy that.
We're getting closer to a common ground, overextrude! If then, your side has faith in man's ability to prove or disprove ToE, you would be classified as a Secular Humanist, which is a religion.
This illustrates one other little sticking point. By definition, theories do not require proof, and their often abstract nature allows them to exist quite amiably within the realm of the metaphysical. But when you start equating 'metaphysical' with 'religion', it simply isn't an accurate representation. Much of science relies on the metaphysical, and there are many instances where direct proof is unattainable, but fairly reasonable conclusions can be drawn based on inference.
Ah, but there's too many problems with ToE to reach a reasonable conclusion. I challenge you to present any real, scientific evidence to support ToE.
The gaps in ToE are numerous. To teach such a flawed theory, while excluding the Theory of Creation (which has far fewer gaps) is, at best, academically irresponsible. At worst, it is state-sponsored propaganda for a religious belief system (Secular Humanism/Naturalism).
Also xampersand, they are not teaching the minute details and 'behind the scenes' science that make the theory work. They are just teaching the theory, so the students don't have any idea how evolution works exactly, only that it IS the answer. If they were to teach the math, and chemistry, and physics, and geo-science behind it all, maybe the students would be able to draw their own cunclusions more accurately. What's even worse is that they are tested on this stuff. They are not given a choice between "is it true" or "is it false", you must answer the questions based on the assumption that evolution is 'true', and that, IS forcing a belief system upon someone.
Xampersand
30-Jun-02, 01:39
Good point, acasto!
I believe that if the refutations of ToE were taught along side the theory itself, the academic community would be forced to abandon the teaching of the theory altogether as a waste of time, or at least to minimize the time spent on ToE.
overextrude
30-Jun-02, 17:16
Ah, but again, the core of evolution is to remove God from the picture, making Evolutionism a system of belief with regard to spirtuality and the supernatural.
When you say "is to remove," are you suggesting that the purpose, or stated intent of the ToE was to 'remove God from the picture' or to disprove God's existence?
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." --Michael Ruse, a professor in the departments of Philosophy and Zoology at Guelph. Professor Ruse has written numerous books and has been a leading authority on Evolution since the mid-1970s.
"For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous ... . Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." --Julian Huxley, scientist and biologist, whose work was inspired by Darwin.
This is rather interesting coming from Ruse, since he is not only Christian, but has embraced evolutionism. His statement, "I think that evolution is a fact and that Darwinism rules triumphant," made during a radio interview last year, makes this evident. Further, in his book, "Can a Darwinist be a Christian?" published at the same time, he attempts to explain how the theory of evolution and Christianity can coexist. Not to doubt the legitimacy of your reference, but it seems odd how someone can both insist that evolution is a religion, while also holding fast and clear that it is a science (and factual, no less). Which is it, a religion or a science? If one were to insist that the ToE is still a religion, then how can a Christian embrace the ToE religion while remaining true to their Christian faith?
Huxley, by contrast, was a humanist. He acknowledged the efficacy of religion, but also called for its reconstruction, citing the "god" stuff as a man-made model to explain that which has no explanation. He claimed that religion's obession with the minutae associated with its practice was a distraction, keeping people from experiencing any real sense of spirituality.
Darwin does not mention the Big Bang Theory. However, the fact that Mr. Darwin stopped short in his theory of explaining the origin of life does not negate the fact that the modern ToE relies heavily on Big Bang. And the Big Bang Theory is itself based on a supposed supernatural event: A spontaneous explosion the origin of which is neither explained or supported.
I would be very interested in reading about the ToE's reliance on the Big Bang, so I would be very appreciative if you could point me in a direction that would help in this regard.
This is the problem with Evolution. It pretends to be science, but it's not. Evolutionists buy into the ToE without any way to back it up. "It's science," Evolutionists say, but there is no scientific method applied to its research.
Essentially, you're saying "We can't yet prove why we believe it, we just do."
Why is it so difficult for you to admit your belief is a faith (non-evidentiary belief)?
I'm not sure this is an accurate representation. The process of proving or disproving a theory can be a long and arduous one. Such proof may come in the form of direct observation, or inference. Nobody has seen a big bang actually occur, but it is nonetheless an accepted theory (and oddly, not a religion), based on various factors that lend it credence. The same can be said for the Theory of Special Relativity, and much of the work that deals with the nature of the universe. The fact is that nobody has actually seen a black hole, they've never seen a quark pop in and out of existence, but oddly, these theories aren't being touted as religions either. Why the double standard?
If the ToE is based on nothing more than a blind notion, "we can't yet prove why we believe it, we just do," then why is it even necessary to include elements like the fossil record, ideas about genetic inheritance, and survival traits? These elements aren't there for decoration. Their presence accomplishes exactly what you claim they don't- they provide a foundation- a set of observations used to ascertain whether or not the theory has merit. Further, Your belief model doesn't take into account the period in between the initial hypothesis and the final proof, nor does it take into account the different ways that something like the ToE might be substantiated. If I can say to you, "I think the ToE has merit, and this is why," it would seem to render your belief model invalid.
Say...would the average Christian agree that their religious faith is little more than 'non-evidentiary belief?'
Slow change is still change. You said that it was static. By your own admission, it is not. The fact that the Roman Catholic church was "deliberate and slow" only serves to bolster the idea that the religion is attempting to avoid jumping to rash conclusions.
Ok, let's agree that the term 'static' is relative. It isn't the *objective* of a religious institution to change. Historically, they've frowned upon change, often labeling anyone with ideas that conflicted with its currently-held belief system as heretics (and treated such offenders accordingly). Religious institutions aren't interested in truth evident in the physical world- their primary interest lies in ensuring that their doctrine and/or belief system remains intact - even if some of its tenets are demonstrably wrong. On the other hand, science embraces change, through progressive discovery and iterative refinement. That's the job of science.
The fact that ToE is volatile (Look a tooth! It's evidence of a prehistoric man! No wait, it's a pig's tooth, never mind.) only undermines its authenticity, but it doesn't negate the fact that adherance to the theory requires faith.
I maintain that volatility is a part of the scientific method. You start out with an hypothesis, you build a model, and if everything still looks viable, it may evolve into a theory. At any point in time, subsequent information may either further substantiate the theory, or lead one to question the theory (or a part of it). This is an iterative process that leads to further refinement. In other words, it's a volatile process.
Ah, but there's too many problems with ToE to reach a reasonable conclusion. I challenge you to present any real, scientific evidence to support ToE.
Do you think Darwin woke up one night in a semi-lucid state and made everything up just because it sounded like a cool idea? Is it your contention that *nothing* exists that would lend *any* credence to the ToE? I'm willing to entertain the ToE because even if it does contain gaps, at least it attempts to examine the history of our origin. For ToC advocates, it's simple: "god did it." - there's no effort required, and no reason to learn anything. And therein lies yet another key difference between religion and science - science is driven by humankind's inherent need to understand the world around it. On the flip side, religion's purpose is derived, in part, from its ability to maintain the status quo, and oppress those whose ideas conflict with its doctrine. I support the ToE because of the process involved. My knowledge of it isn't sufficiently detailed, however, to begin debating specific points, and I suspect that you face the same constraint.
By the way, I'd like to correct an erroneous statement I made in my previous post. According to the scientific method, theories do require proof. If there is no proof, the theories can remain, but they are not considered scientific theories. Now, you might think, "A-ha...case closed. The ToE has no proof, so therefore it is not a scientific theory." But I maintain that a) [i]immediate[i] proof isn't a requiremment, and b) proof, when it does become available, can exist in at least two forms: direct observation and/or inference.
Finally, I'm curious as to why you chose not to respond to my comments regarding the definition of the word 'religion'. Was I correct in my assertion that you were attributing a meaning to the word that does not exist?
The same can be said for the Theory of Special Relativity, and much of the work that deals with the nature of the universe. The fact is that nobody has actually seen a black hole, they've never seen a quark pop in and out of existence, but oddly, these theories aren't being touted as religions either. Why the double standard?
Well, actually this is not quite true. Vision is not the only method of mesurement. You can determine something exsists by many methods. Such as it's surronding, the effects on other objects, there can also be residual eveidence. Say you see some mail boxes knocked over and a tree down, then you see tire tracks and skid marks, you did not see anything, but you can conncur that a vehicle came through there. This is supported by your saying that proof can exsist as a direct obsercaton or inference.
Well, by performing an experiment with a particle excellerator, then watching the paths of the sub-atomic particles on the little swirly maps, you can tell that a lower level of matter exsists. Then by comparing these findings, to ther theoretcial models and mathematical assumptions, you can accurately conclude your findings. Thus the answer is made true by a combination of observation and inference. This meaning that we have proof that quarks exsist. It is impossible to SEE a quark literally however, you can not see something in which the wavelength of the energy you are 'seeing' in is longer than the detail on or the object itself. This is why you can not see clearly in infrared, because the infrared wavelength is longer than that of higher engery light. And why you can see really small stuff with an electron microscope, because the wavelenght of high energy electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
As for black hole, even if it was infront of you, you would not be able to see it visibly. Since light can not escape, it does not emmit light to see. Also, the strong gravitational forces cause the light behind it to sort've 'warp' around it, giving the appearance of seeing through it. There is however evidence, or black holes emmiting strong amounts of energy (x-rays I think) from the outer limits of there gravitational field. So it is possible to see them in other parts of the magnetic spectrum. Also, by observing the effect of the velocities and trajectories of nearby bodies and other orbiting matter, you can conclude that there is a strong inviisble force affecting there motion. This same idea leads to the theory that there is a 'dark matter' made up possibly of free quarks around a galaxy, thereby stabilizing it.
overextrude
30-Jun-02, 18:33
Also xampersand, they are not teaching the minute details and 'behind the scenes' science that make the theory work. They are just teaching the theory, so the students don't have any idea how evolution works exactly, only that it IS the answer. If they were to teach the math, and chemistry, and physics, and geo-science behind it all, maybe the students would be able to draw their own cunclusions more accurately. What's even worse is that they are tested on this stuff. They are not given a choice between "is it true" or "is it false", you must answer the questions based on the assumption that evolution is 'true', and that, IS forcing a belief system upon someone.
Imposing a requirement to each everything that underlies the ToE is a rediculous notion, especially when the intent is to provide an overview (which in most cases, is the intent). Now, tell me - what does the average discussion of the ToE entail? If it's any longer than a few minutes (and I suspect that it is), your position isn't accurate. While I'll openly admit that this is purely conjecture on my part, I'm willing to entertain the very real possibility that the average instructional unit covers most or all of the basic ideas behind the ToE. There is nothing that prevents a student from seeking more detailed information, should they so choose.
Here's something else for you to chew on. You've stated over and over that you don't see what the big deal is with respect to the words "under god" appearing in the Pledge of Allegiance. I've neglected to mention something that makes it a very big deal- it's called precedent, and it plays a very important role in our legal system. Consider this: the Oklahoma State House of Representatives approved a bill in April 2000, that contained the following amendment:
"When adopting science textbooks, the Committee shall ensure that the textbooks include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the Universe."
Is this a big deal? It should be. Here you now have a state government that has basically turned itself into a god-based quasi-religious institution. If someone can look at the pledge and reason, "well, the pledge mentions god, so what's wrong with state-sponsored proselytizing aimed at children through their textbooks?" Someone else can now look at what happened in Oklahoma and take it a step further. The fact that both of these situations establish a dangerous precedent, correcting them should be of utmost importance.
You are right, it is about precedant. That is why it should not be removed, it will set a prcedent in which all hell will break lose. Freedom of speech will be further imparied due to the fear of being sued by any liberal with a problem in their life.
As for the text book situation. You find it okay to TEACH that evoltion IS the way life came about, but it is wrong to acknoledge or suggest God as a possiblity. I find this highly hypocritical, you only want things YOUR way with no acknowledgement that there is other possibilities.
As for the teach of evolution. You think that the way it is currently taught is fine? This is absurd, because if you quiz people, or have these brief conversations as you say, they will surely be able to hit the main points about evolution. But I guaretee you the conversation will not progress from opionion into the actual facts of the core sciences and mathematics that would explain the potential possibilities for the aspects of evolution to even occur.
So you find it rediculous to teach the unlying sciences that make up ToE??? Why not just teach an evolution class and say heck with biology then. By doing this, and claiming that evolution theory can stand on it's own two feet, with out any support from other theories or scieces, is going against your claim that it is not a religion. True science has branches, you want to teach it at face value, just the theory, not the process to the conclusion, just the conclusion itself. But that is the problem, science has yet to reach a final conclusion. So the system is flawed!
As for the text book situation. You find it okay to TEACH that evoltion IS the way life came about, but it is wrong to acknoledge or suggest God as a possiblity. I find this highly hypocritical, you only want things YOUR way with no acknowledgement that there is other possibilities.
I agree, it is utterly stupid to teach only one of the many conceptions of humanity.
But the same apply to Oklahoma since they only teach one view now.
"When adopting science textbooks, the Committee shall ensure that the textbooks include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the Universe."
Doesn't seem like they give the choice do they...
So the system is flawed!
Well duh!
Martin
It says "......include acknowledgement......" acknowledgment means (from the dictionary) ... "Recognition of another's existence, validity, authority, or right"
This is merely saying that they are not allowed to deny the possibilites in the students education of the subject.
It says "......include acknowledgement......" acknowledgment means (from the dictionary) ... "Recognition of another's existence, validity, authority, or right"
The words authority and validity should ring a bell here. If the book has to mention the Creation has having authority (or as being a valid explanation), I doubt (I'm making an asumption here) that it will probably not mention ToE as valid too.
This is merely saying that they are not allowed to deny the possibilites in the students education of the subject.
No, it's merely saying that they are not allowed to question the validity of the Creation.
I think that the only ways to teach this sort of things (where we come from, why, ...) is to show many of the possibilities (maybe only teach the most aknowledged) not as fact, but as theories, and giving the person the possibiliy to choose his/her own beliefs.
Martin
In either case, what about taking it all out, and having a class titled perhaps "Life Philosophy" in which all question and theories would be presented, as possibilities. I think anything of the caliber of 'creation' and life is much more complex and deserves a much more in depth look than just a chapter in the biology book.
In either case, what about taking it all out, and having a class titled perhaps "Life Philosophy" in which all question and theories would be presented, as possibilities. I think anything of the caliber of 'creation' and life is much more complex and deserves a much more in depth look than just a chapter in the biology book.
I wholeheartly agree.
Last semester we had a philosophical course (3 hours a week) called "La condition humaine" (roughly translates to "the human condition") about different human conception (including Creationism and Evolutionism). It was very interesting.
Martin
overextrude
01-Jul-02, 04:42
You are right, it is about precedant. That is why it should not be removed, it will set a prcedent in which all hell will break lose. Freedom of speech will be further imparied due to the fear of being sued by any liberal with a problem in their life.
When I read responses like this, all I can do is express my amazement at the utter contempt you've shown with respect to the U.S. Constitution. I normally don't engage in an ad hominem style of debate, but this is an exception.
As for the text book situation. You find it okay to TEACH that evoltion IS the way life came about,
No, not the way life came about, the way that life (theoretically) evolved after it came about. And if I might clarify, I find it okay to teach the ToE not as fact, but as a possible scientific explanation for the existence of humankind.
but it is wrong to acknoledge or suggest God as a possiblity. I find this highly hypocritical, you only want things YOUR way with no acknowledgement that there is other possibilities.
God is not scientific and religion itself is highly subjective. It means many different things to many different people. Some Christians, believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, for example, while others view it from a metaphorical perspective. How do you reconcile this? How do you also reconcile the Christian account of creation against that of other religions, like Buddhism?
As for the teach of evolution. You think that the way it is currently taught is fine? This is absurd, because if you quiz people, or have these brief conversations as you say, they will surely be able to hit the main points about evolution. But I guaretee you the conversation will not progress from opionion into the actual facts of the core sciences and mathematics that would explain the potential possibilities for the aspects of evolution to even occur.
As much as I hate to point this point, this is a complete generalization on your part. You don't speak for anyone but yourself, and I honestly believe I have the mental acuity necessary to draw my own conclusions. Look, if you go out and buy a car, can I reasonably expect you to know how many foot-pounds of torque are required for the bolts on certain parts of the engine casing? Would your judgement that "my car gets good mileage" have any less merit whether or not you aware of this? I don't think its necessary to know all of the arcana in order to understand the principles involved, do you?
So you find it rediculous to teach the unlying sciences that make up ToE??? Why not just teach an evolution class and say heck with biology then. By doing this, and claiming that evolution theory can stand on it's own two feet, with out any support from other theories or scieces, is going against your claim that it is not a religion. True science has branches, you want to teach it at face value, just the theory, not the process to the conclusion, just the conclusion itself. But that is the problem, science has yet to reach a final conclusion. So the system is flawed
In almost any subject one studies, there are inter-related components. If I'm taking a class in Basic programming, should I have to endure learning all about boolean logic, and how logic circuits work? I don't think so. Will my knowledge of Basic be any less valid without this information? Probably not. If I'm teaching a class (or a unit) about volcanoes, does this necessitate that I also include all of the intracies of plate tectonics? Uh, no. So why is necessary to hold the ToE to a different standard? Or better yet, what specific knowledge do you think people ought to walk away with (presumably that they aren't being taught), so that they have what you feel qualfiies as valid understanding of the ToE?
You talk about your metal acuity to draw your own conclusions, but then talk about not having to learn the underlying logic, such as boolean operations. Without a good education in the underlying fact, can you explain how it is possible for someone to accurately draw their own conclusions. The ONLY way you want it is: NO religion, ONLY evolution. This is shown in your willingness to irresponsibly throw it into a subject, then not want to teach the other core sciences, then deny religion. If you want to deny reiligion 100% then I believe you must deny Evolution 100% being taught, because this is contradictory and simply not fair to many people.
You say you find it okay to teach the ToE not as fact..... then what in the world is wrong with a philosophy class.... why would you but something that is not factual, something that can not be proved, then give students, many who do not believe, a test on it assuming that ToE is fact.
Xampersand
01-Jul-02, 15:13
Ah, but again, the core of evolution is to remove God from the picture, making Evolutionism a system of belief with regard to spirtuality and the supernatural.
When you say "is to remove," are you suggesting that the purpose, or stated intent of the ToE was to 'remove God from the picture' or to disprove God's existence?
I am suggesting that ToE is an attempt to answer the question of the origin of man apart from God, and I am suggesting such an enterprise constitutes a religion, based on the definitions I submitted in my first post, specifically
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
The reason I have used the word "religion" throughout this discussion is because of its common usage in debates of this type. (ie. Should religion be allowed in public schools?)
Perhaps a better term would be Theology which is the science of studying God. Now, I'm sure you'll be quick to say that Theism is the study of GOD, and ToE does not include any god/higher power, but for purposes of this discussion, I purpose that ToE relies on the gods of Time and Chance. In other words, ToE is a speculative theology, in that, the theoretical process is treated as science, once one has made the necessary leap of faith to believe the process in the first place. ToC is based on a speculative theology too, once one makes the leap of faith to believe that God exists.
Somehow, in the minds of the educational community, one leap of faith is religion, the other is just a gray area in need of supplemental study.
My base premise for contributing to the thread was that ToE is, for all practical purposes, a religion. As I stated before, although ToE doesn't have the trappings of what we would call a standard organized religion, it does purpose a certain view of the supernatural. By addressing the supernatural in ToE, it becomes a religious discussion.
...it seems odd how someone can both insist that evolution is a religion, while also holding fast and clear that it is a science (and factual, no less). Which is it, a religion or a science? If one were to insist that the ToE is still a religion, then how can a Christian embrace the ToE religion while remaining true to their Christian faith?
I agree! I find it curious that he would be able to reconcile the two. The problem with such a reconciliation is that you can't really believe either theory and hold to its counterpart, since each seeks to disprove the other.
I would be very interested in reading about the ToE's reliance on the Big Bang, so I would be very appreciative if you could point me in a direction that would help in this regard.
Where did the original one-celled organism come from? Modern ToE supporters often cite the BBT as being the action responsible for the primordial soup from which life supposedly sprang.
Nobody has seen a big bang actually occur, but it is nonetheless an accepted theory (and oddly, not a religion), based on various factors that lend it credence.
And not too long ago, there were those who believed that the world was flat. Nobody had been to the edge and back, but it was widely accepted. It was an idea that was borne of incomplete scientific observation, and had to be radically modified once more thorough observation was completed.
Wide acceptance of a theory does not lend credence. In the case of the Big Bang Theory, all the present observable effects of explosions deny that BBT could ever occur, no matter how long you waited.
The same can be said for the Theory of Special Relativity, and much of the work that deals with the nature of the universe. The fact is that nobody has actually seen a black hole, they've never seen a quark pop in and out of existence, but oddly, these theories aren't being touted as religions either. Why the double standard?
All scientific theories are not religious/theological. But ToE attempts, whether by default or intention, that God did not create man. By taking a directly opposite view of a religion/theology, ToE is a religion/theology.
If the ToE is based on nothing more than a blind notion, "we can't yet prove why we believe it, we just do," then why is it even necessary to include elements like the fossil record, ideas about genetic inheritance, and survival traits? These elements aren't there for decoration. Their presence accomplishes exactly what you claim they don't- they provide a foundation- a set of observations used to ascertain whether or not the theory has merit. Further, Your belief model doesn't take into account the period in between the initial hypothesis and the final proof, nor does it take into account the different ways that something like the ToE might be substantiated. If I can say to you, "I think the ToE has merit, and this is why," it would seem to render your belief model invalid.
Say...would the average Christian agree that their religious faith is little more than 'non-evidentiary belief?'
Again, ToE does not have evidence to support it any more than ToC.
The average Christian would say that the Bible is evidence for their belief.
The average ToE supporter would say that the Bible is not sufficient record, because the ToE supporter doesn't believe it.
When I said "non-evidentiary" I was speaking to the universal acceptance of the documentation, not to the individual acceptance.
Religious institutions aren't interested in truth evident in the physical world- their primary interest lies in ensuring that their doctrine and/or belief system remains intact - even if some of its tenets are demonstrably wrong. On the other hand, science embraces change, through progressive discovery and iterative refinement. That's the job of science.
Wrong! There's a number of scientific organizations that study creation research. The fact that the goal is to prove ToC shouldn't be looked down on. The organizations that exist to prove ToE are trying to keep their status quo also.
Do you think Darwin woke up one night in a semi-lucid state and made everything up just because it sounded like a cool idea? Is it your contention that *nothing* exists that would lend *any* credence to the ToE? I'm willing to entertain the ToE because even if it does contain gaps, at least it attempts to examine the history of our origin. For ToC advocates, it's simple: "god did it." - there's no effort required, and no reason to learn anything.
I'm sure Mr. Darwin pursued his ideas with zeal and conscientious devotion. (note the word choice!) But if great devotion and effort were all that were necessary to define truth, than it could be said that Hitler had the right idea, because he really believed in what he was doing.
(NOTE: I am not trying to equate Mr. Darwin with Adolf Hitler. I'm merely trying to illustrate how absurd the notion is that devotion = truth.)
Further, why can't the answer be simple? Does the process have to be complex before you can believe it? Or look at it this way: what if you were to start with the base idea that God created man. Does that mean that there is nothing left in science to discover?
And therein lies yet another key difference between religion and science - science is driven by humankind's inherent need to understand the world around it. On the flip side, religion's purpose is derived, in part, from its ability to maintain the status quo, and oppress those whose ideas conflict with its doctrine. I support the ToE because of the process involved. My knowledge of it isn't sufficiently detailed, however, to begin debating specific points, and I suspect that you face the same constraint.
I don't pretend to be an scientific expert any more than you do. But I do enjoy debating with you, overextrude. It requires me to exercise thought and does not preclude research. Intelligent discussion almost always occurs when two thinking people are willing to explore why they believe what they believe.
And to that end, please understand, though we have completely different points of view, I don't require you to change to my point of view (oppression). The fact that history is littered with people who used religion to justify their oppressive actions shouldn't be the basis by which all those who have religious beliefs are judged.
By the way, I'd like to correct an erroneous statement I made in my previous post. According to the scientific method, theories do require proof. If there is no proof, the theories can remain, but they are not considered scientific theories. Now, you might think, "A-ha...case closed. The ToE has no proof, so therefore it is not a scientific theory." But I maintain that a) [i]immediate[i] proof isn't a requiremment, and b) proof, when it does become available, can exist in at least two forms: direct observation and/or inference.
Then why can't ToC be accepted as a scientific theory that doesn't have immediate proof? Maybe I've been going at this debate the wrong way...
How long should we subscribe to a theory with no immediate proof? If I believe that pixies cause Alzheimers, how long will the scientific community accept my theory? One day, Uncle Fred was fine, the next he couldn't remember anything or anyone. Darn those pixies!
You'd say that's a silly notion, and dismiss it outright. But suppose I was able to get 100,000 people to agree with me? How about a million? At what point is it okay to teach an unproven theory as fact?
Finally, I'm curious as to why you chose not to respond to my comments regarding the definition of the word 'religion'. Was I correct in my assertion that you were attributing a meaning to the word that does not exist?
As I said at the beginning of this post, religion might not be the right word, but it's the most common word used in discussions of this type.
Both ToE and ToC are metaphysical belief systems, yet one is given preferred status in schools. It is that double standard with which I take issue.
How does ToE explain that very first organism? Where did it come from? Why did it become something else? Why don't we see any evidence of further evolution? What causes evolution to occur, and why does it arbitrarily stop?
Why is ToC considered religion, and thus excluded? That is, why can't a school teach the Theory of Creation by an as of yet unquantified Higher Power?
overextrude
02-Jul-02, 18:25
You talk about your metal acuity to draw your own conclusions, but then talk about not having to learn the underlying logic, such as boolean operations.
My response wasn't clear. Consider the following:
If (x > 2) then (y) else (z);
I can know both what this does, and when to use it without having to know anything about transistors or logic gates. I can also use it with a reasonable assurance that the performance I get from coding it this way will be sufficient. This, in turn, saves me from having to know about specific methods of optimization that require more specific knowledge: that of assembly language or machine code, for example, which in and of themselves, require still more specific knowledge about the CPU itself. So as you can see, I'm not talking about boolean operations. I'm talking about all of the underlying physical and theoretical arcana that make them work. And, the interesting thing here is that there's no reason I should be expected to know this, unless my specific field of endeavor requires it. You use a computer, don't you? What do you know about vertical blanking interrupts or event queues?
Without a good education in the underlying fact, can you explain how it is possible for someone to accurately draw their own conclusions.
Why do you insist on questioning the ability of others to draw their own conclusions? At what point will they know enough, in your opinion, to 'accurately' draw their own conclusions?
The ONLY way you want it is: NO religion, ONLY evolution. This is shown in your willingness to irresponsibly throw it into a subject, then not want to teach the other core sciences, then deny religion. If you want to deny reiligion 100% then I believe you must deny Evolution 100% being taught, because this is contradictory and simply not fair to many people.
It's not the purpose of the ToE to deny the existence of a Christian god, it's about providing a possible explanation for the existence of humankind, and doing so in a respectably scientific manner. Creation, on the other hand, carries with it a great deal of highly subjective, highly variable, and in some cases, highly volatile baggage that is not subject to peer review or objective criticism. When you teach creation, for starters, what version of creation will you use?
That would be great if only it were that simple!!!! Maybe you should make the curriculum!
The question of evolution is not yet proven, so it is not my oppinion, but fact, that nobody knows enough to draw an accurate conclusion. But by continuous education and learning, perhaps one day the answer would be found.
So explain then how you can provide explanation of the exsistance of humankind in a respectable scientific manner without thoroughly learning the data. I'm sure any good scientist would love your notion of just 'knowing' the answer without any investigatvie work.
Your argument now has degraded into just calling you right and me wrong. You provide no reason, only what you think should be. You shouldn't teach creation for starters, if they can't understand it in the first place. Why don't you just start reviewing functions with the class with out explaining them first. Oh, BTW. I'm familiar with your little programming terms.
Oh, BTW. I'm familiar with your little programming terms.
Thats interesting, since you stated (and clearly demonstrated) in a previous thread that you have a limited knowledge of programming.
Your argument now has degraded into just calling you right and me wrong
(not saying that overextrude is doing this but...)
'turnabout is fair play'?
Oh, BTW. I'm familiar with your little programming terms.
Thats interesting, since you stated (and clearly demonstrated) in a previous thread that you have a limited knowledge of programming.
That is interesting isn't it! Does not having extensive 'experience' mean you don't know the subject? And just how did I demonstrate.............????
Your argument now has degraded into just calling you right and me wrong
(not saying that overextrude is doing this but...)
'turnabout is fair play'?
I am not saying anyone is flat out wrong. Overextruded wants NO religion, and basic evolution taught without any mention of underlying sciences that makes it up. He just wants the kids to be taught that we all came about that way. While I suggest two methods. One, teach the evolution, but put more emphasis on the sciences that make the theory possible, then let the serious study of evolution happen in college. Two, take out evolution, and put it in a life philosophy class with religion.
Evolution is a seroius and complicated subject. It is one that I think the way it is taught now only teaches confusion, and for people to ignore the fact that the education is not good, just because they believe evolution to be true, is ignorant. Just because someone believe in evolution, dosn't mean that the way the teach it in school does not suck.
That is interesting isn't it! Does not having extensive 'experience' mean you don't know the subject?
I will give you a second to think about what you just said and the point that overextrude was trying to make.
Go on, I will wait (looks at watch)
? And just how did I demonstrate.............????
How easily one forgets.
I am not saying anyone is flat out wrong
Actually you are, and have been doing such concerning various subjects for quite some time now. But then again I would never expect you to recognize that you are every bit as stubborn and closed minded as you accuse others of being.
But then again who am I to argue with you? You have god on your side since jesus himself uses linux and loves americans because they had the good sense to leave europe!
I love linux monkies.
Zarf
----------------
(Don't bother responding acasto, I find you a terribly boring individual. What a miserably dull life you must lead if you can find the time to contribute this much traffic to the forums.)
I will give you a second to think about what you just said and the point that overextrude was trying to make.
We'll then, in the context of overextruded, my level of experience does not matter, as he was reffering to knowledge of the subject based on necessity.
How easily one forgets.
I ask because you and others are notorious for taking a question someone asks, then try and make them feel dumb or look stupid for it. If I remember right, I was asking about making a library of graphic function. I asked a question, if you can't give an answer, without being a jackass, then why don't you just keep your mouth shut! How is anyone ever supposed to learn without asking questions, I'm surprised you don't make fun of people on the Q&A forum!!!
I am not saying anybody is flat out wrong....
Maybe I shoudl rephrase that. I don't think either side is wrong, I do believe overextrudes view is however. Why don't you explain what is wrong with my view??? Evolution is a serious theory and topic, much like astrophysics, or the Big Bang, or String Theory, but yet the others aren't pressed like evolution is. They teach the basics, then leave it up to the individual to decided whether to pursue a more detailed study in a college or university. Evolution could easily be taught in a philosophy class as well as religious theory as neither has any hard truth or can be proved. What exactly is wrong with this ?
(Don't bother responding acasto, I find you a terribly boring individual. What a miserably dull life you must lead if you can find the time to contribute this much traffic to the forums.)
I type over 100 words a minute, and I'm constantly doing 4-5 things at a time. But this only stengthens my jackass comment about you, as your attitude is just plain terrible. I put much thought into my many posts (at least most of them), unlike you who only put short ignorant comments..
@ Zarf and Acasto: if you have a personaly grundge against each other, can you be kind enough not to express it on public boards? That's what the private message are there for. If you want to throw insults (be them real or between lines) at one another, do it somewhere else.
I closed the other thread because it was getting rough. please, keep this one clean.
Martin
I understand theeth, I would however ask that people don't insult or ridicule when someone asks a reasonable question regarding any topic. I beleive when it comes to programming, some would be worried to ask any questions due to people insulting them for not being as good as they are.
I would however ask that people don't insult or ridicule when someone asks a reasonable question regarding any topic.
that's exactly what I was saying.
Martin
The "seperation of church and state" is no where in the Constitution, anywhere. It was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson and taken completely out of context. It basically regards the "problems" that could arise when you *have* "seperation of church and state".
Anyone here is free to look this up.
Regarding "Mr" Gene Shift in the Evolution topic... Good grief, so what you're saying is eventually a rabbit may turn into a turtle. Or new genes are created from mutation? So if we keep bouncing the letters in the word evolution around for 23 billion years - we may eventually get the word xerox? Awesome!
Ringo7: I suggest you read the Evolution thread. some posts are very noteworthy. I'm pretty sure you'll learn something.
To the others: please do not reply to the turtle/rabbit,evolution/xerox argument, it will just continue what was ended.
Martin
The "seperation of church and state" is no where in the Constitution, anywhere.
Your playing funny buggers with semantics here. Your correct in the sense that the phrase 'seperation of chruch and state' does not appear, however a statement of clear policy regarding the government and religion is codified in the second amendment.
And even if it weren't there it should be. Those who wish it otherwise have a strange notion that they have an inalieable right to impose their views on others.
overextrude
04-Jul-02, 22:32
That would be great if only it were that simple!!!! Maybe you should make the curriculum!
The question of evolution is not yet proven, so it is not my oppinion, but fact, that nobody knows enough to draw an accurate conclusion. But by continuous education and learning, perhaps one day the answer would be found.
I don't recall ever having said that the ToE proves the existence of mankind - I said that it's a theory attempting to explain it. I've also acknowledged that there are some gaps. What I keep hearing from you is that the only way anyone can know about the ToE (and draw any conclusions based on this knowledge) if they know everything there is to know about it. This simply does not reflect the real world. You can't expect someone in high school to possess the same level of knowledge and experience as someone who has devoted a significant part of their professional life to the field of research. It doesn't mean they can't draw conclusions based on what they do know.
So explain then how you can provide explanation of the exsistance of humankind in a respectable scientific manner without thoroughly learning the data. I'm sure any good scientist would love your notion of just 'knowing' the answer without any investigatvie work.
Where did this come from? We're talking about learning are we not?
Your argument now has degraded into just calling you right and me wrong. You provide no reason, only what you think should be. You shouldn't teach creation for starters, if they can't understand it in the first place. Why don't you just start reviewing functions with the class with out explaining them first. Oh, BTW. I'm familiar with your little programming terms.
Are you also familiar with the fact that whales and primates share common junk DNA? How do you explain this?
I disagree with your comment that I've not provided any reasons. They have been stated over several posts, but I really don't mind summarizing them. These are the reasons that creation (religion) should not be taught as an alternative to the ToE:
1. Religion is not science. It is highly subjective and personal, and is not subject to peer review, criticism, or refinement. Aside from the fact that there are many religions, any one religion can mean vastly different things to different people. There is no objective way to reconcile these differences.
2. Some religions carry a vast history of ideological baggage that has nothing to do with the ToC.
3. There are multiple accounts of creation, and as with the first point, there is no objective way to determine which one of them would be most appropriate.
4.Among those who believe in creation, there are some who also believe that evolution is an intentional component of creation (Ruse, for example, who has gone so far as to refer to evolution as 'fact'.) This belief is by no means universal, however, thereby raising the very real prospect of disagreement between various pro-creation factions as to what is right and what isn't.
5. Since it is not the stated purpose of the ToE to explain away god or religion, there is no justification for requesting equal consideration. They're two different animals, and each have their proper place.
Would you like any further clarification?
[ You can't expect someone in high school to possess the same level of knowledge and experience as someone who has devoted a significant part of their professional life to the field of research.
Your right, so what good would it do to teach them as it's a fact. Other than the agenda of people to do just what they are complaining about, push their beliefs on others. Your viewpoint is highyly hypocritical. You are addmitting that kids should learn controversial topics in which they can not understand. The way I suggest, teach pure science, seperate the unknowns into philosophy, then let further pursuit after highschool, is so much more logical then what you are suggesting. You still have not shown what is wrong with my idea, only why yours is so good.
Where did this come from? We're talking about learning are we not?
I was talking about learning, your talking about teaching a collection of opinions, mixed with some facts and data, as a scientific fact. Now if you say "were not teaching it as fact...." then why should it be in a sience class in which students are taught logic, fact, and method.
Are you also familiar with the fact that whales and primates share common junk DNA? How do you explain this?
Can you prove your explanation either?
There are multiple accounts of creation, and as with the first point, there is no objective way to determine which one of them would be most appropriate.
Exactly, which is why all should be in some type of philosophy class, none can be proven correct, however right you think YOURS is!
Since it is not the stated purpose of the ToE to explain away god or religion, there is no justification for requesting equal consideration. They're two different animals, and each have their proper place
They are two different things when taken properly, evolution is very scientific. However when taught as you suggest, with no in depth understanding, and as the ONLY solution, you simply make it the same as religion.
overextrude
05-Jul-02, 02:47
Your right, so what good would it do to teach them as it's a fact.
Haven't we discussed this already? I've mentioned at least two different times that the ToE isn't a fact, but a theory. I've also explained my feeling that this is exactly how it ought to be represented- as a theory. It is, after all, a theory. Even though Michael Ruse thinks it is fact, it's not...it's a theory. T-H-E-O-R-Y.
Other than the agenda of people to do just what they are complaining about, push their beliefs on others.Your viewpoint is highyly hypocritical. You are addmitting that kids should learn controversial topics in which they can not understand.
Let's try this from another angle. When you first expose a child to math, it's very simple: 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc. They need to master the concept before it really means anything, and before they can move on to bigger an better things. As time progresses, this child's exposure to math will include subtraction, multiplication, and division. After that, this child may be exposed to ways of using math to solve simple problems. Then, more complex problems might make their way into the picture. Eventually, exposure to more complex applications, like algebra, trigonometry, and calculus may become part of the experience. This leads me to the same question I've posed before - at what point does this kid know enough about the subject at hand (in this case, math)?
The way I suggest, teach pure science, seperate the unknowns into philosophy, then let further pursuit after highschool, is so much more logical then what you are suggesting. You still have not shown what is wrong with my idea, only why yours is so good.
Can you explain to me how you'd approach a discussion of black holes as a philosophical construct rather than a scientific one? How about gravity being a manifestation of a space-time continuum? I'd say that you're trying to mix apples and oranges here. Science and philosophy are distinctly different. It is my contention that science deals with the observation, investigation, explanation, and manipulation of our physical world, while philosophy is person-centered. Science is about how the physical world works, while philosophy is about the sense of being that takes place in the physical world. If you have a different perspective, please share.
I was talking about learning, your talking about teaching a collection of opinions, mixed with some facts and data, as a scientific fact.
This isn't a fair representation. When one is taught, they learn. One follows the other. This having been said, I'm sure how you've come to characterize the ToE as collection of opinions, mixed with some facts. Do you have any examples that would help me understand why you've chosen to represent the ToE as you have?
On a secondary note, why do you insist on claiming the ToE is being taught as a scientific fact? It's a scientific theory. It even SAYS it is. What's more, as much as ToE supporters like Michael Ruse might insist otherwise, it is a theory. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe that it's being taught as anything other than a theory.
Now if you say "were not teaching it as fact...." then why should it be in a sience class in which students are taught logic, fact, and method.
Because it's a scientific theory, like many other scientific theories. The Theory of Relativity, for example. Quantum Theory. Chaos theory.
Can you prove your explanation either?
I'm not sure what explanation you're asking me to prove. But I do think it's important to look at factual information - like the common DNA shared by whales and primates. Can you explain this? This is the kind of factual data the support the ToE. If the ToE is, as you suggest, merely a collection of opinions mixed with a few facts, then surely you must have an explanation for a phenomenon (the common DNA) that has such profound implications.
Exactly, which is why all should be in some type of philosophy class, none can be proven correct, however right you think YOURS is!
We finally agree on something - the accounts of creation (having a religious foundation) do belong in a philosophy class.
They are two different things when taken properly, evolution is very scientific. However when taught as you suggest, with no in depth understanding, and as the ONLY solution, you simply make it the same as religion.
Consider the following question, which illustrates why I think your reasoning is faulty: why would I need to know the exact strands of DNA that are common between various species and their predecessors, in order to know that they have common DNA?
Let's try this from another angle. When you first expose a child to math, it's very simple: 1+1=2, 2+2=4, etc. They need to master the concept before it really means anything, and before they can move on to bigger an better things. As time progresses, this child's exposure to math will include subtraction, multiplication, and division. After that, this child may be exposed to ways of using math to solve simple problems. Then, more complex problems might make their way into the picture. Eventually, exposure to more complex applications, like algebra, trigonometry, and calculus may become part of the experience. This leads me to the same question I've posed before - at what point does this kid know enough about the subject at hand (in this case, math)?
Indeed another angle, you completely proved my arugment, thanks!!!
You have now explained why they don't start kids off in calculus, but I'm sure you'll have a reason to start them off in evolution!
Overextrude: I don't clearly see your point here. Acasto is not trying to disprove ToE (in his last posts at least), he's just saying that it shouldn't be teached as an absolut fact (which is what happen most of the time if you don't really explain the underlying elements of it).
Martin
Exactly Theeth, I only think we need to review our time, place, and methods of teaching it.
Sure, you can't really say when one has learned enough. But can anyone honesty say that 1-2 weeks max, maybe 1 hour day max, in a low rate book filled mostly with pictures, is enough. I believe that this is bad for both sides, it's putting something on kids that they might not belief, and it's not giving a theory with such compelxity the attention it deserves
Overextruded, the way it is taught is not beneficial to your (or any other evolutionists) side. Why are you so persistant to defend it? Don't you see that by continuing in this way, it is it's only teaching confusion on both sides.
overextrude
05-Jul-02, 17:31
Indeed another angle, you completely proved my arugment, thanks!!!
You have now explained why they don't start kids off in calculus, but I'm sure you'll have a reason to start them off in evolution!
It appears that you've misunderstood my point.
What I'm saying is very clear: with respect to the learning process, you can't discount general knowledge simply because the expression thereof may not include the detail behind it. Is it possible to drive a car without knowing exactly how it's manufactured or how the wheels are connected to the drive train? Yes, it is. Is it possible to talk about a car without knowing the physics behind internal combustion? Yes, it is. By the same token, then, is it possible to know about the ToE, without knowing the underlying detail? Yes, it is.
I'm a little puzzled as to why you think the ToE deserves to be treated differently than any other discipline. Why must I know everything about it in order to know anything about it?
overextrude
05-Jul-02, 17:39
Overextrude: I don't clearly see your point here. Acasto is not trying to disprove ToE (in his last posts at least), he's just saying that it shouldn't be teached as an absolut fact (which is what happen most of the time if you don't really explain the underlying elements of it).
Martin
I don't understand how you can make this assumption in light of my previous post. Do you agree that when something refers to itself as a theory, it is, by definition, not a fact?
It appears that you've misunderstood my point.
What I'm saying is very clear: with respect to the learning process, you can't discount general knowledge simply because the expression thereof may not include the detail behind it. Is it possible to drive a car without knowing exactly how it's manufactured or how the wheels are connected to the drive train? Yes, it is. Is it possible to talk about a car without knowing the physics behind internal combustion? Yes, it is. By the same token, then, is it possible to know about the ToE, without knowing the underlying detail? Yes, it is.
I'm a little puzzled as to why you think the ToE deserves to be treated differently than any other discipline. Why must I know everything about it in order to know anything about it?
You have reached the point, in trying prove you are right, in which you are not understanding your own points and posts.
Again I ask, do you really think, in less than 20 hours of non-intense study, that one can accurately dray a conclusion. Sure they can without knowing everything, but not in the way the public school systems teaches. I believe you are probably personally interested in evolution, this probably caused you to pay unordinary attention to the subject, thus your vision relative to the average student was blurred.
You are thinking and arguing so hard about this from YOUR perspective, I think, and I believe Theeth would agree, that it is different for the average student. They take what is handed to them, and what they will be tested on, and that's it. Most are not personally motivated about this subject as you seem to be. Can you not try and put yourself in someone elses shoes for a moment?
I'm a little puzzled as to why you think the ToE deserves to be treated differently than any other discipline. Why must I know everything about it in order to know anything about it?
I am placing it where it belongs, you are putting it out of place. You are taking one of the many unproved theories out there, giving it an entire chapter, teaching it like it is THE ANSWER, and testing them as though it was fact.
overextrude
05-Jul-02, 20:38
You have reached the point, in trying prove you are right, in which you are not understanding your own points and posts.
I don't understand myself? In the thousands of posts that I've contributed to various online discussions, I've never heard anyone suggest that I don't understand myself. That's a new one, alright.
Again I ask, do you really think, in less than 20 hours of non-intense study, that one can accurately dray a conclusion.
They can accurately draw a conclusion based on what they know. This is a given, and it's all any of us can expect to do, regardless of the topic at hand.
Sure they can without knowing everything, but not in the way the public school systems teaches.
Your expectations are biased (because they apply only to the ToE) and they are not realistic. Noone can know everything- they can only know as much as they do. This not to say that one's lack of knowledge cannot lead to inaccurate conclusions, but this is by no means unique to the ToE. It's true of any subject. It's a fact of life.
I believe you are probably personally interested in evolution, this probably caused you to pay unordinary attention to the subject, thus your vision relative to the average student was blurred.
Your belief is misplaced- I have nothing but a very casual interest in evolution- my interest in maintaining the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, however, is decidedly more important to me.
You are thinking and arguing so hard about this from YOUR perspective, I think, and I believe Theeth would agree, that it is different for the average student. They take what is handed to them, and what they will be tested on, and that's it. Most are not personally motivated about this subject as you seem to be. Can you not try and put yourself in someone elses shoes for a moment?
What you're saying, if I understand, is that most students would admit, even welcome the idea, that they cannot draw their own conclusions based on what they've learned. Somehow I don't think you'll get many takers.
...teaching it like it is THE ANSWER, and testing them as though it was fact.
I say over and over, IT'S A THEORY, but somehow you keep seeing, IT'S A FACT. You've generalized that it's being TAUGHT as fact, but I think you and I both know that this simply isn't true. The ToE *is* the best scientific explanation we have at this time for existence of humankind. Within the realm of scientific discussion, the ToC is not an alternative because it is not an alternate scientific theory, it is part of a highly subjective belief system with its roots in religious doctrine.
I'm still a little puzzled as to why you think the ToE deserves to be treated differently than any other discipline. Why must I know everything about it in order to know anything about it?
You are simply repeating the same thing you have been saying. You are not getting the point, you don't have to know everything about it!!! But the way it is taught in public schools is just plain irresponsible.
I do not see what is so hard about this. I am not making it different, you are. Evolution is biased, it gets more attention, more time, more pages in the book, more emphasis, more controversy, etc... etc... etc..... If you can not see this, then why not go to a few public highschools, and look through the biology curriculum. You are looking at the situation with blind eyes. I am in no way treating it differently than any other theory, no other theory has anything close to the emphasis that ToE does in school. I am merely requesting a scaled back, more appropriate approach.
Why don't you teach a kid a little addition and subration, then give the quadratic equation and tell them what it is. Then ask them to accurately derive it!!!
I say over and over, IT'S A THEORY, but somehow you keep seeing, IT'S A FACT. You've generalized that it's being TAUGHT as fact, but I think you and I both know that this simply isn't true.
When you take someting you do not completely understand at face value, then it is interpreted as fact, because that is all they have to go on.
Tell me then what it is exactly you would have to learn in order to draw an accurate conclusion? When I was in highschool biology, I learned all about evolution in the 10th grade, it wasn't until I took college biology in the 12th grade that they taught anything about the different types of mutations, or gene drift, or even the models of population growth. The average student however, was never exposed to the same scientific teaching I was. I will say that it would be possible to accurately teach the ToE in highschool, but it must be done more appropriately, however, we must review our methods. The public education system is going down the drain, surely you can't disagree with that!
I’m a bit confused now. acasto: are you saying that they should teach more evolution and also teach creation?
If so should creation be taught in biology or religion class?
I don’t think it’s ready for biology class because it simply doesn’t have enough respect in the science community.
Another thing that I find confusing is that you want students to draw a conclusion as to if it is possible or not that evolution is a fact or not.
My experience in school is that no subject at all was taught from this point of view.
You were just expected to learn as much as possible within the given timeframe, screw whatever use you might have of the subject.
I think that what you are proposing would havto be a new kind of class that it a mix of biology religion and to some extent philosophy.
To me it’s not a necessity. Evolution is the leading scientific theory/fact and as such should be the one that is taught. I don’t even think it has any competition worth mentioning.
I'm a bit confused now. acasto: are you saying that they should teach more evolution and also teach creation?
No, I'm just saying evolution is too involved to justfully get into in the limited time provided by public education. Sorry for any confusion, I'm not even thinking about ToC's involvment, only the placement of ToE.
To me it's not a necessity. Evolution is the leading scientific theory/fact and as such should be the one that is taught. I don't even think it has any competition worth mentioning
Yes, but is a theory that is very complex and involved. I think it should be mentioned, but any further pursuit should be followed on an individual basis, college, or maybe in the life philosophy class even. But the main point I'm trying to get at, is more science, less speculation!
If you believe that the ToE is such a 'leading scientific theory' and so important, then I don't quite understand why you would be against this. From a neutral standpoint on the topic, the week or two spent would be worthless. Because you would learn enough to kind've know but not for sure, but not enough to understand much of anything you though you might've learned. So in other words, a more targeted curriculm on the topic of pure science and method, with mention of other theories. Then perhaps a more indepth theoretical look in a college entry or college level course, either in high school or college itself.
Im not against it. But doing so would require cutting back on something else. Most of these subjects only teach the basics.
They are simply there so the people can know of them and can choose to study them further if they want.
History class is a great example. You learn who did what when. Not why and what should be done so it never happens again. If you want to study such things in detail it should be done later because there is to much history to cover.
There isn’t time to study anything in depth except the stuff that actually makes difference in peoples life’s and/or continued education. Knowing of evolution will only make your life better if you become a biologist or something similar.
That said. I wouldn’t mind if you got to choose when starting biology class what subject should be studied and for how long. This was tried in a class I can best translate as "knowledge of society" in my school and it turned out if was one of the most well paced classes I have ever been to.
But the only difference with history is, you can take it at face value with memorization. Because it is fact you only have to learn, not really understand.
What would you say, instead of having a 'life philosophy' type class, howabout a 'theoretical science' class. In which evolution, big bang, and all would be studied in depth, and still be mentioned in regular classes, but maybe just a page or so versus a whole chapters study.
Or look at it this way. This is what I think some of the root of the problem may be. Think of the mindset of two types of students:
1.) Booksmart, honor-roll, literal type intelligence
2.) Creative, inquisitive, abstract type intelligence
When I look at the current bio curriculum, I see ToE as a painting lesson in math class. Where if you had a theoretical science class, you wouldn't be pushing the bounds with ToC or philosophy, and you would still be in the realm of real science.
haunt_house
06-Jul-02, 04:36
If your schools are similar to the ones I know, then the method of teaching ToE is certainly not the biggest problem there.
The schools I know:
-stress on the faults rather than on the success (f.e. the red pen)
-foster rivalry and selfishness.
-employ nearly insane teachers, who give not a second thought to their teaching methods, but every thought to their ego.
-do not help the children to learn thinking but to store and repeat information.
-destroy any chance of the idea that learning can be fun!
HH
Well. I don’t know exactly how it is studied in the usa so I don’t know how it should/could be changed.
In Sweden only the facts of the theory were taught.
It was 4 years since I went to the class so what I remember might be a bit wrong.
Microevolution through the example with the flies that turned from black to white.
How genes from male and female don’t blend. But are combined, this through example with eye color.
I don’t remember anything being taught about mutations of genes or gene drift. But I think it’s possible that it also went through gene drift.
How is it in the usa?
It varies on if you have a good teach or not who is willing to teach 'out of the book'. Basically, our curriculum sucks, and now most of the good teachers are being replaced with young ones right out of college. School has gone from a focus on education, to a focus on politics.
That's why my ideas focus around two classes, one that can be taught with little teacher involvement if necessary. Just books and tests would be possible. And another class (theoretical class) that would center around creative thought and continuing knowledge. This way a tuff topic in a class like such might promote one, even without a good teacher, to try and think of the possibilites.
Your right about the insane teach thing, haunt house. My 5th grade teacher stabbed her husband to death a couple years ago then tried to kill herself. We had one teacher that let some couples go back to her house to have sex. A couple of teachers that was having affairs with each other, a few that was having affairs with students, constant bomb threats and gang type 'wanna-bees'....... basically.... I'm glad to be out!
overextrude
06-Jul-02, 17:16
You are simply repeating the same thing you have been saying. You are not getting the point, you don't have to know everything about it!!! But the way it is taught in public schools is just plain irresponsible.
Ok, let's shift the focus a bit...just how is it being taught in public schools that makes it irresponsible?
I do not see what is so hard about this. I am not making it different, you are. Evolution is biased, it gets more attention, more time, more pages in the book, more emphasis, more controversy, etc... etc... etc.....
It gets more time, attention, pages, emphasis....than what?
If you can not see this, then why not go to a few public highschools, and look through the biology curriculum. You are looking at the situation with blind eyes. I am in no way treating it differently than any other theory, no other theory has anything close to the emphasis that ToE does in school. I am merely requesting a scaled back, more appropriate approach.
In other words, the ToE should get no more time or attention than something else, right? If this is what you're suggesting, it contradicts what you said earlier. You commented on how you think students are unable to draw accurate conclusions about the ToE because they aren't being exposed to the necessary level of detail. Now you're saying that because the ToE gets more time, attention, pages, etc., that students should spend only as much time learning about the ToE as they do with respect to other aspects of their education. How do you expect students to draw more accurate conclusions if they have less information to work with, having spent less time learning about it?
overextrude
06-Jul-02, 17:34
But the only difference with history is, you can take it at face value with memorization. Because it is fact you only have to learn, not really understand.
Are you serious? History isn't just dates, people, and events, it's about everything that makes us human.
What would you say, instead of having a 'life philosophy' type class, howabout a 'theoretical science' class. In which evolution, big bang, and all would be studied in depth, and still be mentioned in regular classes, but maybe just a page or so versus a whole chapters study.
What exactly would this accomplish? What makes this better than the current method?
When I look at the current bio curriculum, I see ToE as a painting lesson in math class.
Somehow I doubt that this view is very common.
Where if you had a theoretical science class, you wouldn't be pushing the bounds with ToC or philosophy, and you would still be in the realm of real science.
Since when has creation become a matter of science? It has nothing to do with science.
Are you serious? History isn't just dates, people, and events, it's about everything that makes us human.
Then what is history, do you see everything backwards or something?
What exactly would this accomplish? What makes this better than the current method?
Puts theory in a theory class!
Somehow I doubt that this view is very common.
Somehow, I doubt you know exactly what is common! It is not common probably because it is in fact, an 'insight'. Something in which many are lacking the capabilites of these days!
Since when has creation become a matter of science? It has nothing to do with science.
I am tired of arguing with you, you don't make any sense. You only contradict yourself over and over, then your only argument is just repeating the same thing over and over. Through comprehension of what I said, you can see that I said "wouldn't be pushing the bounds with........", meaning that you wouldn't be involving creation or philosophy with science. ToE would stay in science, but in a class in which instead of learning how to memorize and read, you would learn how to think intuitively and discover!
Ok, let's shift the focus a bit...just how is it being taught in public schools that makes it irresponsible?
It is being laid out as is, with no instruction on how a process or study would go into trying to prove sceintific aspects, or even with good direction on how to learn more. It just "this is the ToE....." and that's it.
It gets more time, attention, pages, emphasis....than what?
Other theories that is equally important! (don't go saying the big bang isn't, because I would like to see evolution occur without matter!!!)
In other words, the ToE should get no more time or attention than something else, right? If this is what you're suggesting, it contradicts what you said earlier. You commented on how you think students are unable to draw accurate conclusions about the ToE because they aren't being exposed to the necessary level of detail. Now you're saying that because the ToE gets more time, attention, pages, etc., that students should spend only as much time learning about the ToE as they do with respect to other aspects of their education. How do you expect students to draw more accurate conclusions if they have less information to work with, having spent less time learning about it?
Tell me, I know this is difficult, if you have a class, that is totally about just theories, in which you would spend perhaps a month or more on a topic like ToE, just how that is LESS time. That last time I checked, a month or two was longer than a week or two. But then again, the Earth is slowly slowing down. That is the whole point of my suggesting starting a "theoretical science" class, to give more time and details to study!!!
overextrude
06-Jul-02, 22:47
Then what is history, do you see everything backwards or something?
Of course not. I recently began reading about Hitler's rise to power and the ensuing Jewish Holocaust. It's a hell of a lot more than dates and events.
Puts theory in a theory class!
Sure...we'll mix, say, color theory, music theory, and the theory of evolution. That makes a lot of sense to me. Oops....no it doesn't. Nor do I think many others would find it particularly appealing.
Somehow, I doubt you know exactly what is common!
I do not know for a fact what is more common. Be serious, though...how LIKELY do you think it is that students are distraught over the fact that the ToE isn't being taught in a 'theory' class?
You only contradict yourself over and over, then your only argument is just repeating the same thing over and over. Through comprehension of what I said, you can see that I said "wouldn't be pushing the bounds with........", meaning that you wouldn't be involving creation or philosophy with science.
And yet you referred to it as a class on 'theoretical science', which then prompted my question: what does creation have to do with science?
Of course not. I recently began reading about Hitler's rise to power and the ensuing Jewish Holocaust. It's a hell of a lot more than dates and events.
Is it true, or is it theory? Your shaping it to make you look more involved in your argument.
Sure...we'll mix, say, color theory, music theory, and the theory of evolution. That makes a lot of sense to me. Oops....no it doesn't. Nor do I think many others would find it particularly appealing.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. If you think that it means 'mixing' all theories, then there is just no dealing with you. Isn't it funny when people run out of room to aruge, they make nonsense like you did above. If it is in any way confusing, maybe my use of the words "theoretical science" would diffrentiate it from color theory, music theory, etc.... If you are forgeting my mention of 'theoretical science', please refer to your own words at the bottom of your post!
I do not know for a fact what is more common. Be serious, though...how LIKELY do you think it is that students are distraught over the fact that the ToE isn't being taught in a 'theory' class?
Ya, I'm surprised people don't realize something that is so obvious!!! Most students don't like school anyways, I doubt they sit around thinking of ways to improve their education.
And yet you referred to it as a class on 'theoretical science', which then prompted my question: what does creation have to do with science?
And I said that the class on theoretical science woud in no way involve the theory of creation. Is it that hard to understand, or are you doing this on purpose to try and make a desperate save?
overextrude
06-Jul-02, 23:26
Ok, let's shift the focus a bit...just how is it being taught in public schools that makes it irresponsible?
It is being laid out as is, with no instruction on how a process or study would go into trying to prove sceintific aspects, or even with good direction on how to learn more. It just "this is the ToE....." and that's it.
And you have come to know this how, exactly?
It gets more time, attention, pages, emphasis....than what?
Other theories that is equally important! (don't go saying the big bang isn't, because I would like to see evolution occur without matter!!!)
So, you're taking it upon yourself to determine that the ToE is no more important than some other scientific theories, and therefore, deserving of less attention. And yet, you still think students ought to be able to make accurate conclusions. Somehow these just don't seem to coincide very well.
Tell me, I know this is difficult, if you have a class, that is totally about just theories, in which you would spend perhaps a month or more on a topic like ToE, just how that is LESS time. That last time I checked, a month or two was longer than a week or two. But then again, the Earth is slowly slowing down. That is the whole point of my suggesting starting a "theoretical science" class, to give more time and details to study!!!
First off, this is rediculous. There is no justiable reason to remove the ToE from the study of biology or earth sciences simply because it's a theory. Most of science revolves around theory, and there are other fields that do as well (music and art, for example). Second, it just so happens that my conversation with a high-school-age acquaintance yesterday made for some interesting revelations: they study the ToE for an entire quarter, and it is made very clear at the beginning, and throughout, that it is theory and not fact. Interesting, huh?
And you have come to know this how, exactly?
What do you think, I didn't go to highschool?
So, you're taking it upon yourself to determine that the ToE is no more important than some other scientific theories, and therefore, deserving of less attention. And yet, you still think students ought to be able to make accurate conclusions. Somehow these just don't seem to coincide very well.
I never said anythign about getting LESS attention. Nice twisting on things again, but let alone a pretty desperate move.
First off, this is rediculous. There is no justiable reason to remove the ToE from the study of biology or earth sciences simply because it's a theory.
Again you go twisting things, is it really getting that bad??? I never said remove it, if your gonna use the little 'quote' button, please do so accurately.
Second, it just so happens that my conversation with a high-school-age acquaintance yesterday made for some interesting revelations: they study the ToE for an entire quarter, a
Thanks again for bringing more light to my arguments. If they are spending a whole quarter on ToE, then it really does need a seperate class, becaue that is wasting valuable time on normal biology.
...it is made very clear at the beginning, and throughout, that it is theory and not fact. Interesting, huh?
Whether theory or fact is not in discussion here. Whether or not it is recieved that way is dependant upon teacher, school, book, etc..... So basing your whole previous 'I told ya...." type argument on it is futile.
Then what is history, do you see everything backwards or something?
I must agree with overextrude here (and I we are certainly not alone). History is not just facts and figures, It must be viewed within in a proper context and tells us about the human condition. Do you really think that history majors writing there thesis papers sit down and write a prose account of what happened? It's much MUCH more than that, and I am very sorry for you if you were never in a class that treated the subject properly because it puts you at a disadvantage.
What do you think, I didn't go to highschool?
I'm not busting your chops just for the sake of it acasto, but thats not a statistically signifigant sample, therefore it dosnt mean a whole lot.
Consider that its up to each state to handle its own educational system and therefore there is a huge variation in quality and cirriculum. In light of that I would say you need to produce more proof for your claims about how evolution is taught if your to be taken seriously.
But I'm talking about the basic history teaching methods. A college type situation is very much different, but in highschool, the teachers have one objective, for the students to score good on exams. The exams are pushed because this determines the rating for the school which in tern determines amounts of financing given to the school. So the history is laid out as fact in which you must just know in order to pass the test.
I think you can break the study history up into two parts:
1.) Historical facts
2.) Interpretations and abstract
The first on is what the teachers in highschool push, because that is all that is needed. While the second is the only one that does society any good. This application also applies to the argument over ToE, what good does it do to just 'touch on' ToE? I don't think it is possible to give ToE the proper attention, while fullfilling the standard biology necesities.
What do you think, I didn't go to highschool?
I'm not busting your chops just for the sake of it acasto, but thats not a statistically signifigant sample, therefore it dosnt mean a whole lot.
Consider that its up to each state to handle its own educational system and therefore there is a huge variation in quality and cirriculum. In light of that I would say you need to produce more proof for your claims about how evolution is taught if your to be taken seriously.
But it answers his question, he knows what I mean. He is only picking, he can provide no substantial proof of his own either.
overextrude
07-Jul-02, 00:34
Of course not. I recently began reading about Hitler's rise to power and the ensuing Jewish Holocaust. It's a hell of a lot more than dates and events.
Is it true, or is it theory? Your shaping it to make you look more involved in your argument.
Are you suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen?
Sure...we'll mix, say, color theory, music theory, and the theory of evolution. That makes a lot of sense to me. Oops....no it doesn't. Nor do I think many others would find it particularly appealing.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. If you think that it means 'mixing' all theories, then there is just no dealing with you.
Isn't it funny when people run out of room to aruge, they make nonsense like you did above. If it is in any way confusing, maybe my use of the words "theoretical science" would diffrentiate it from color theory, music theory, etc.... If you are forgeting my mention of 'theoretical science', please refer to your own words at the bottom of your post!
This was an error on my part. My apologies.
I do not know for a fact what is more common. Be serious, though...how LIKELY do you think it is that students are distraught over the fact that the ToE isn't being taught in a 'theory' class?
Ya, I'm surprised people don't realize something that is so obvious!!! Most students don't like school anyways, I doubt they sit around thinking of ways to improve their education.
That's purely a matter of opinion.
And yet you referred to it as a class on 'theoretical science', which then prompted my question: what does creation have to do with science?
And I said that the class on theoretical science woud in no way involve the theory of creation. Is it that hard to understand, or are you doing this on purpose to try and make a desperate save?
The way that I interpreted your last post was that because it was a class based on theory, including the creationist account of man's origin wouldn't be that much of a problem. I think it's safe to say that I misinterpreted what you said.
Are you suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen?
Only pointing out the differences in methods between studying history and science.
That's purely a matter of opinion.
Opinion or not, do you really think, curriculum wise, the students could come up with the best layout. Provided that a lot of time a plan for a 'best layout' would come by hindsight after-the-fact, meaning, they can't complain if they don't know another way.
The way that I interpreted your last post was that because it was a class based on theory, including the creationist account of man's origin wouldn't be that much of a problem. I think it's safe to say that I misinterpreted what you said.
The reason for seperate class I suggest is this. In one class, you would learn the science and facts, such as "...a cell is made up of....." and "....chlorophyll does.......", etc... etc... etc... In the other, theory class, you would learn to take insight, apply method, look for proofs and evidence, etc... etc... etc... Plain biology is something that can be tested on, and you can leave the class knowing the subject matter. Where evolution, or any theory for that, requires and open mind, and different approach to the topic at hand.
blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
oh god its happened! everyones talking in blah code and ive been left out of the group with decoders! dammmmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbblllllllaaaahhhhhhhh!!!
-blah
haunt_house
07-Jul-02, 05:58
me too
let´s unite
blah?
overextrude
07-Jul-02, 06:30
And one wonders why the Evolution thread was locked...
And one wonders why the Evolution thread was locked...
no, one stoped wondering about that...
I think this blah blah blah blah thing is very accurate. I mean, in all the discussion between Acasto and you, there is a countless number of little miss-understandings which led to re-repeating the arguments of both side which IMHO could well be refered as blah blah. then again, who am I....
I have the impression that the discussion might come to an agreement soon...
Martin
overextrude
07-Jul-02, 14:03
And one wonders why the Evolution thread was locked...
no, one stoped wondering about that...
I think this blah blah blah blah thing is very accurate. I mean, in all the discussion between Acasto and you, there is a countless number of little miss-understandings which led to re-repeating the arguments of both side which IMHO could well be refered as blah blah. then again, who am I....
I have the impression that the discussion might come to an agreement soon...
Martin
Why not keep it constructive or just refrain from saying anything? I realize this requires a certain level of maturity but it's not undoable. If what's being said is particularly troubling, boring, or whatever, why not contribute something that will move the discussion in a positive direction, like Zarficle has done? If the only eventuality in any discussion in this forum is that it will degenerate into the equivalent of a play date at the public sandbox, then I'll gladly walk away from the discussion and let the kiddies go at it- I can easily put my time to more productive use.
A recap:
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
.
.
.
(14 pages later)
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
acasto: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
overextrude: You have no proof of your viewpoint so you're wrong since you don't believe what I believe, and nothing you say will make me change my mind!
.
.
.
I can easily put my time to more productive use.
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a jerk Jim, but you probably should have done this about 12 pages ago. Just let go -- let the thread die!
Chris
This topic is however, not a waist of time. We are not discussing whether a theory is correct, or whether or not there is a God! We are talking about the efficiency of the curriculum of the public school system. From this we have developed two ideas, one, keep it the same, two, restructure with more focus. This is something that could in fact be tested, and judging from how often the officials 'restructure' curriculum, to make it look like the politicians are working hard, I don't think 'testing' it is so far fetched.
A topic on evolution ends of being a waist of time, as does religion, but this is a real, tangible topic that one could probably find and research withinn a few or so miles from your house.
overextrude
07-Jul-02, 16:04
A recap
I can easily put my time to more productive use.
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit of a jerk Jim, but you probably should have done this about 12 pages ago. Just let go -- let the thread die!
Chris
Chris, I'm quite sorry if what you've posted is all you've managed to glean from this discussion, but don't you think it would be better if everyone were allowed to make their own decision with regard to the discussion's content? Admittedly, the exchanges haven't been perfect (they seldom are), but they have exposed two sides to a very volatile issue.
Just the same, I find this whole thing rather odd - maybe you (or anyone, for that matter) can help me understand why you find an end to this discussion so compelling.
You two aren't going to let the thread end, are you?
Just let go of it -- if you do it soon, you can stop the
appearance of page 16!
Chris
P.S. Oh no! Now that they've found a common foe, who
knows how many more pages there will be as the discussion
mutates into a "Hos is a big old meanie" thread. ;)
Overextruded, I hate to ruin a whole week or so worth of thought by just giving up, so why don't we try and finish by fiinding an answer. I think we both agree there is two(2) situations in discussion, but heres the problem. The base situation (your side), or the 'as-is' situation, varies from school to school and class to class, so here lies a little chaos. I agree it is possible to accurately teach evolution in a bio class, however, my argument lies in my belief that it usually isn't taught right. The teaching methods differ dependant on the school situation on testing, the teachers personal beliefs, the time allocation, and material at hand, etc...
So first what we must lay out is, the base situation. What is the STANDARD in curriculm when it come to teaching evolution in biology class? Once we have a base to work from, it will be easier to dicern individual ideas and principles, thus taking alternate reference points and relative insights out of the picture.
overextrude
08-Jul-02, 02:34
Overextruded, I hate to ruin a whole week or so worth of thought by just giving up, so why don't we try and finish by fiinding an answer. I think we both agree there is two(2) situations in discussion, but heres the problem. The base situation (your side), or the 'as-is' situation, varies from school to school and class to class, so here lies a little chaos. I agree it is possible to accurately teach evolution in a bio class, however, my argument lies in my belief that it usually isn't taught right. The teaching methods differ dependant on the school situation on testing, the teachers personal beliefs, the time allocation, and material at hand, etc...
So first what we must lay out is, the base situation. What is the STANDARD in curriculm when it come to teaching evolution in biology class? Once we have a base to work from, it will be easier to dicern individual ideas and principles, thus taking alternate reference points and relative insights out of the picture.
At the point that we were interrupted, I had mentioned how rediculous I thought it was that a 'theory' class would result in more thorough coverage of the ToE. You suggested a month-long period of study, while my conversation with a high-school-aged acquaintance revealed that they already study it for an entire quarter (about 1.5 months). I was asking you what leads you to believe that separating the ToE from the rest of an overall lesson in biology or earth science would be an appropriate (or effective) alternative.
overextrude
08-Jul-02, 03:33
Revisiting the original debate....
I occasionally watch a show called Jack Van Impe Presents, which airs in the early morning hours in my location. It's not that I believe what he says, it's just that he and wife make for some interesting entertainment. Today, he commented on the court ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegience, and did so in what I would consider a misleading fashion. His claim centered around the notion that there was nothing wrong with the words "under god" as they appeared in the Constitution, since it wasn't religion specific - it could apply to a Christian god, a Muslim god, a Jewish god, etc.
I won't deny the possiblity that it could refer to any of these, but it doesn't. The historical facts simply do not support this interpretation. Most ironic, is that Christians who actively support this interpretation would seem to be in violation of their own commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. I'm curious as to how one might reconcile these two conditions.
At the point that we were interrupted, I had mentioned how rediculous I thought it was that a 'theory' class would result in more thorough coverage of the ToE. You suggested a month-long period of study, while my conversation with a high-school-aged acquaintance revealed that they already study it for an entire quarter (about 1.5 months). I was asking you what leads you to believe that separating the ToE from the rest of an overall lesson in biology or earth science would be an appropriate (or effective) alternative.
When did I suggest a month long period of study? And how is it rediculous, that if you have a class concentrating on theorys, that you wouldn't get more coverage of the ToE? And studying the ToE for a whloe quater in regular Biology is a waste of regular biology time.
Well, he is right about the words not being religious specific. The atheisits take the words literally, as do they the constitution. If we say that it dosn't matter because 'historically' is tradition, that does not work. It would not work either the other way, if they say 'historically' it's a chrisitian God. But that dosn't matter, because they believe in NO God, so any mention of any higher being would offend them. Also, it dosn't violate the commandments because it says, God, not Gods.
overextrude
09-Jul-02, 11:43
When did I suggest a month long period of study? And how is it rediculous, that if you have a class concentrating on theorys, that you wouldn't get more coverage of the ToE? And studying the ToE for a whloe quater in regular Biology is a waste of regular biology time.
I thought I saw a post of yours where you advocated spending a month studying the ToE in a special 'theory' class as opposed to the wrongly assumed 20 hours. So, how long do you think it ought to be, and what about this method you propose would ensure that someone has more exposure than the methods used today? And, something I haven't quite been able to figure out yet...what is everybody missing in regular biology or earth science class because of the time spent studying the ToE, that is so important?
Well, he is right about the words not being religious specific. The atheisits take the words literally, as do they the constitution. If we say that it dosn't matter because 'historically' is tradition, that does not work. It would not work either the other way, if they say 'historically' it's a chrisitian God. But that dosn't matter, because they believe in NO God, so any mention of any higher being would offend them.
No, it's just that anything so general as a reference to a 'supernatural influence' would be offensive to the Christian right. Odd how I don't see any other religious sector raising a such fuss about this. Why is that? BTW...even though Van Impe's wife claimed that 'under god' appears in the Constitution, it does not. It is Pledge of Allegiance to which I'm referring, and the pledge that contains the language in question.
My question still stands - do you honestly believe that the Knights of Columbus and Eisenhower really had anything in mind but the Christian god when this change was made?
Also, it dosn't violate the commandments because it says, God, not Gods.
Nice dodge, but it doesn't work. The word god doesn't refer to a 'Christian' god. It refers to any god, and because it refers to any god, those whose religious beliefs command that they not put any other gods before them, are not being true to their faith. If you're suggesting that plural form of 'god' is the issue, then your interpretation implies that as long as you have one god before you (even a non-Christian one), you're ok - I seriously doubt that this was the intent of the commandment.
I think that has to do with the capital letter. Only the catholics (and christians and ...) call their god "God". Most of the other religions have other name (Allah, Yavhe, Vishnu, ...), so it only takes a basic assumption to think that God with a capital letter will more often than not relate to the Bible's god.
Martin
I thought I saw a post of yours where you advocated spending a month studying the ToE in a special 'theory' class as opposed to the wrongly assumed 20 hours. So, how long do you think it ought to be, and what about this method you propose would ensure that someone has more exposure than the methods used today? And, something I haven't quite been able to figure out yet...what is everybody missing in regular biology or earth science class because of the time spent studying the ToE, that is so important?
More indepth biology? ..... So you saying it's fine to spend a whole quarter something that might not be true to being with?
My question still stands - do you honestly believe that the Knights of Columbus and Eisenhower really had anything in mind but the Christian god when this change was made?
No, but the words are as they are, however they were intended.
Nice dodge, but it doesn't work. The word god doesn't refer to a 'Christian' god. It refers to any god, and because it refers to any god, those whose religious beliefs command that they not put any other gods before them, are not being true to their faith. If you're suggesting that plural form of 'god' is the issue, then your interpretation implies that as long as you have one god before you (even a non-Christian one), you're ok - I seriously doubt that this was the intent of the commandment.
Who are you decide what the commandments is implying? You take the word God as what it is to you. For it to reffer to any God, one would have to believe in 'any' God, that is what would be against the Christian beliefs. But just the word God, to regular believers, simply means God.
overextrude
09-Jul-02, 20:01
More indepth biology?
I guess what I'm asking is this: what specific and substantive benefit will be derived from spending more time on biology or earth science by removing the ToE from these courses of studY?
\So you saying it's fine to spend a whole quarter something that might not be true to being with?
There are many theories (especially in the sciences) that serve to explain, but have not yet been proved. Why single this one out?
No, but the words are as they are, however they were intended.
And this means....what?
Who are you decide what the commandments is implying? You take the word God as what it is to you. For it to reffer to any God, one would have to believe in 'any' God, that is what would be against the Christian beliefs. But just the word God, to regular believers, simply means God.
Be serious. Any god, any other god, what's the difference? It means that a Christian shall not follow any other god. There is only one, and its the one whose only begotten son was born of a virgin, crucified (for man's wrongdoing, and ellegedly rose from the dead. That spells Christianity. What does "god" mean to a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu? I'd posit that this is an American term, used by Americans, and with a very specific meaning (I believe this was Theeth's point).
I guess what I'm asking is this: what specific and substantive benefit will be derived from spending more time on biology or earth science by removing the ToE from these courses of studY?
The answer is within " ....spending more time on biology or earth science...." But then again, I guess there's something wrong with building a strong foundation. I hope they don't teach architects like that.
There are many theories (especially in the sciences) that serve to explain, but have not yet been proved. Why single this one out?
Exactly!!!
And this means....what?
It's worded how it is, no matter how someone makes it out to be on intentions. Lawyers do it all the time with contracts.
Be serious. Any god, any other god, what's the difference? It means that a Christian shall not follow any other god. There is only one, and its the one whose only begotten son was born of a virgin, crucified (for man's wrongdoing, and ellegedly rose from the dead. That spells Christianity. What does "god" mean to a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu? I'd posit that this is an American term, used by Americans, and with a very specific meaning (I believe this was Theeth's point).
So you imply the word 'God' is blasphemous? It's the same as spirtuality, it's what lies within. What the word 'God' means to you is what matters. Not what someone else thinks it is implying.
overextrude
09-Jul-02, 22:07
The answer is within " ....spending more time on biology or earth science...." But then again, I guess there's something wrong with building a strong foundation. I hope they don't teach architects like that.
So...you're saying "let's spend more time on OTHER aspects of biology and earth science just so that we can spend more time on OTHER aspects of biology and earth science." Without a specific objective, it makes your whole argument (as it applies to education) somewhat specious.
There are many theories (especially in the sciences) that serve to explain, but have not yet been proved. Why single this one out?
Exactly!!!
Why single out the ToE?
It's worded how it is, no matter how someone makes it out to be on intentions. Lawyers do it all the time with contracts.
The intent, back in 1964, was very clear. Although I heard on the news recently that 89% of the American public objected to the court's decision, I wonder how many Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists were included in the survey, and whether or not they are aware of the history behind it.
So you imply the word 'God' is blasphemous? It's the same as spirtuality, it's what lies within. What the word 'God' means to you is what matters. Not what someone else thinks it is implying.
It is blasphemous in the manner in which it is being used. I guess the question is this: Can a Christian be true to his/her own faith (the first commandment) while supporting a tradition that encourages or recognizes the worship of other gods? I don't think so.
So...you're saying "let's spend more time on OTHER aspects of biology and earth science just so that we can spend more time on OTHER aspects of biology and earth science." Without a specific objective, it makes your whole argument (as it applies to education) somewhat specious.
What you say makes absolutely NO sense. I say, study more biology, the facts, the basics which make up the whole field. You say, study the ToE.....???? Where in the world will that get you?
Is there something wrong with having a good foundation in the basics???
Why single out the ToE?
Again, EXACTLY!!! Why more time, money, concentration..........
The intent, back in 1964
See how far the "...well that's what was intended.." argument gets you in a world as technical as today!
It is blasphemous in the manner in which it is being used. I guess the question is this: Can a Christian be true to his/her own faith (the first commandment) while supporting a tradition that encourages or recognizes the worship of other gods? I don't think so.
This is is simply nonsense!!! So then what would make it right, if we included little astrisks with a footnote that directly states which God is reffered to? That is about the most rediculous thing I have heard to date.
overextrude
10-Jul-02, 01:29
What you say makes absolutely NO sense. I say, study more biology...
But to WHAT END??? What will students have that they don't have already, and HOW will they benefit from it? In other words, in order to justify what you're suggesting, you will have had to identify what is missing from the current curriculum, what effect it has had, and how the proposed change will improve the situation. You haven't done any of this.
, the facts, the basics which make up the whole field. You say, study the ToE.....???? Where in the world will that get you?
A basic introduction to the ToE is every bit as basic as anything else you'll find in a class on biology or earth science. Learning about the ToE is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Why single out the ToE?
Again, EXACTLY!!! Why more time, money, concentration..........
You didn't exactly answer my question. There's no rational basis for singling out ONE theory, ONE aspect of biology/earth science, and treating it different from all the rest.
The intent, back in 1964
See how far the "...well that's what was intended.." argument gets you in a world as technical as today!
I allude to the presence of historical facts that will explain the intent in question, and you respond with "technology". You've completley lost me. what's the connection?
This is is simply nonsense!!! So then what would make it right, if we included little astrisks with a footnote that directly states which God is reffered to? That is about the most rediculous thing I have heard to date.
The point is that it (the pledge) DOES refer to 'other' gods. The point is that it puts the Christian god on equal footing with every other god. The point is that for a Christian to support this, they are implicitly supporting the worship of, what are, in the eyes of their own faith, false gods. I'm merely attempting to restore some consistency between what some religious groups are willing to say, and what they actually do. If one wants to talk the talk, they should be prepared to walk the walk.
But to WHAT END??? What will students have that they don't have already, and HOW will they benefit from it? In other words, in order to justify what you're suggesting, you will have had to identify what is missing from the current curriculum, what effect it has had, and how the proposed change will improve the situation. You haven't done any of this.
So your saying that the field of biology is so narrow that 3/4 year is enough to cover it all. I can not say to what end, but I can say 3/4 is not enough.
You haven't done any of this.
I have indeed, but I can't help it if you've choosen to ignore it. You take something that is logically correct, and try to trivialize it by asking minute details that vary from situation to situtation. Yet in fact, you can not answer the same questions.
A basic introduction to the ToE is every bit as basic as anything else you'll find in a class on biology or earth science. Learning about the ToE is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
So a whole quarter spent on one topic is just as basic as everything else, but the 3/4 of the year spent on the whole subject is enough??? Your logic goes in contradicting loops.
You didn't exactly answer my question. There's no rational basis for singling out ONE theory, ONE aspect of biology/earth science, and treating it different from all the rest.
Do you not see what you are doing??? The ToE is singled out, yet you admit there is no rational basis for singling out. YOU ARE singling out.... think about it!
I allude to the presence of historical facts that will explain the intent in question, and you respond with "technology". You've completley lost me. what's the connection?
This is what make this topic tireing, are you doing this on purpose???
Technical... meaning picky, legality, everything must be perfect, or someone will find a loophole... that type of technical!!!
The point is that it (the pledge) DOES refer to 'other' gods. The point is that it puts the Christian god on equal footing with every other god. The point is that for a Christian to support this, they are implicitly supporting the worship of, what are, in the eyes of their own faith, false gods. I'm merely attempting to restore some consistency between what some religious groups are willing to say, and what they actually do. If one wants to talk the talk, they should be prepared to walk the walk.
So YOU say!!!
You are attempting to restore some consistency?? What in the world does that mean. Are you above the rest, or see something everyone else don't. What you are doing is exactly what confused you above, you are basing this rediculous statement off an interpetation of a technical aspect, or in other words, your trying to be right based on a technicallity.
So your saying unless we include the asteriks with a footnote stating which God is reffered, then we're balsphemous? This is a prime exmaple how people can take anything and make a bunch of non-sense out of it.
overextrude
10-Jul-02, 14:07
So your saying that the field of biology is so narrow that 3/4 year is enough to cover it all. I can not say to what end, but I can say 3/4 is not enough.
And what is it exactly that leads you to believe this?
You haven't done any of this.
I have indeed, but I can't help it if you've choosen to ignore it. You take something that is logically correct, and try to trivialize it by asking minute details that vary from situation to situtation. Yet in fact, you can not answer the same questions.
First, you are the proposing the change, not me. You therefore bear the onus of supporting your contention that things aren't working. So, let's try this again:
What specifically leads you to believe that there is a problem with the method currently being used to teach biology and earh sciences? I'm not looking for more generalities.
A basic introduction to the ToE is every bit as basic as anything else you'll find in a class on biology or earth science. Learning about the ToE is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
So a whole quarter spent on one topic is just as basic as everything else, but the 3/4 of the year spent on the whole subject is enough??? Your logic goes in contradicting loops.
There's something else you've conveniently overlooked. The ToE relies on several other related areas of study (genetics, adaptation, taxonomy, etc.). I'd almost go so far as to say that the ToE provides an effective framework within which one can then learn about any of these related areas- that's a lot of biology right there.
You didn't exactly answer my question. There's no rational basis for singling out ONE theory, ONE aspect of biology/earth science, and treating it different from all the rest.
Do you not see what you are doing??? The ToE is singled out, yet you admit there is no rational basis for singling out. YOU ARE singling out.... think about it!
I don't understand. Consider the following:
1. It's not my contention that too much time is being spent studying the ToE.
2. I haven't proposed to move the ToE into a special 'theory' class.
If I'm not the one proposing the change, how can you logically conclude that I'm the one attempting to single anything out?
I allude to the presence of historical facts that will explain the intent in question, and you respond with "technology". You've completley lost me. what's the connection?
This is what make this topic tireing, are you doing this on purpose???
Technical... meaning picky, legality, everything must be perfect, or someone will find a loophole... that type of technical!!!
If you review the definitions of the words technical and technology, the reason for my confusion will be apparent. These two terms cannot be used interchangeably, as you have done here.
With respect to the actual point that you're attempting to make- there's no "perfect" about this. The religious right is the first one into the pool when it comes to talking about intent - especially as it relates to its perception of the First Amendment. Apparently, though, they are the first ones out of the pool when it comes to applying the same method to show inconsistencies in the application and/or practice of their own faith.
The point is that it (the pledge) DOES refer to 'other' gods. The point is that it puts the Christian god on equal footing with every other god. The point is that for a Christian to support this, they are implicitly supporting the worship of, what are, in the eyes of their own faith, false gods. I'm merely attempting to restore some consistency between what some religious groups are willing to say, and what they actually do. If one wants to talk the talk, they should be prepared to walk the walk.
So YOU say!!!
You are attempting to restore some consistency?? What in the world does that mean. Are you above the rest, or see something everyone else don't. What you are doing is exactly what confused you above, you are basing this rediculous statement off an interpetation of a technical aspect, or in other words, your trying to be right based on a technicallity.
What is that technicality, exactly? Even constutional scholars will say that there has been a bit of 'bobbing and weaving' when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the First Amendment. This issue, apparently, is no exception. What you're suggesting implies that historical facts are mere technicalities, and have little or no bearing on the present- or does that only apply to this historical fact?
So your saying unless we include the asteriks with a footnote stating which God is reffered, then we're balsphemous? This is a prime exmaple how people can take anything and make a bunch of non-sense out of it.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that one's support of religious freedom isn't compatible with some religions- most notably those who command, "thou shalt not put false gods before me."
I am done arguing with you. You simply do not get it. You are trying to mix things up by denying logical generalizations. It would be like if I said the average person couldn't learn to play the piano well in a few months and you say "...provide exact details...", you know you can't and you are doing that on purpose.
You think that the ToE provides a frame work in which you could learn. So your porposing a backwards method for educating people in which the average person could care a less about it. That works for people who are self motivated and want to learn, but otherwise, most just want the data so that they can complete the work and pass the test.
You can use technical interchangibly, however you must account the oppsite parties abilitiy to recongize surrounding context and take that into account.
valarking
26-Sep-02, 21:43
Let's see what comes next... BUMBUMBUMP.
slikdigit
26-Sep-02, 22:07
Okay, since we're reviving topics: It was mentioned somewhere in the thread that Muslims call their god Allah, Only Christians call him/her/it God (capital G). In fact Arabs call their God Allah, whether they are christians or Muslims (Arab Jews too sometimes) and largely consider that they are refering to the same entitity. So Allah is more of the Arabic word for the english word 'God' than the muslim one. In fact, christians of other languages must surely have other words for God? What is it in French, Italian, etc?
And whats this Toe thing people keep going on about? Is it some new constraint system? all this sounds a little too kinky for me ;)
slikdigit
26-Sep-02, 22:10
By the way, creationism is just embarrasing.
IMProvisar
27-Sep-02, 08:35
By the way, creationism is just embarrasing.
Why?
As for God vs. Allah vs. Yaweh (I *think* that's the Jewish name for God, but I'm not Jewish). They're all the same entity. As a Christian, I am just as offended by someone poking fun at Allah as I am by someone poking fun at God or Christ. Of course... I don't offend easily, so it doesn't really happen... but if I did get offended by one, I'd be just as offended by the other.
Imp
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.1 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.