Yeah, I know. I was just being sarcastic. I'm an evolutionist myself and I enjoyed your debate with the other guy. You did it in a way without attacking his personal beliefs. I wish some others on here would have shown the same respect.If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.
I do not have respect for beliefs not supported by data. Nor should I.
People have a right to believe what they want without having their houses raided, losing their jobs (assuming their beliefs don't interfere with performance of said jobs), or being tossed in jail. I don't (and would never) support closing churches or forcing people to change their religion. Their right to believe what they wish must always be respected.
That doesn't mean their views deserve to be respected. If they say/do/believe things that don't make any sense, I'm going to call them on it. Every time.
What should religion be treated differently? Or should my solemn belief that I'm Batman be "respected?"
The fact is that tolerance and religion have not, historically, gone hand in hand. If pointing that out makes me a bad guy in your mind, well, I can live with that. Tip-toeing around it to protect someone's feelings is the fastest way to a repeat performance.
|
Let's hope not. Obama is the change we NEED. McCain's choice of Palin was obviously a gimmick pick. I think most intelligent women are smart enough to know that.
Not to mention Michelle Obama is an INCREDIBLE woman; who seems to be a lot more in touch with what the modern American women's rights movement wants.
Hillary would have been a strictly political pick (like McCain's was). I'm glad Obama picked what he thought would be the better VP rather than who he thought would give him more votes. And Biden is not an empty suit; he's done a lot of good work in Congress.
the empty suit i was referring to was obama, just for the record...
as an independent (trust me, its true), i find this blind worship of obama fascinating. he has no record of effecting "change" in any position he has ever held, in fact, he has introduced exactly zero legislation of any substance, he hasn't even been present for any of the legislation he claims he supported (the congresional record is a wonderful resource for anyone who is interested in finding out about these things) and has been running for president (not representing illinois in the senate) ever since his speech at the '04 convention...
unfortunately for the obama camp, mccain's choice of palin will limit their tactical options in ads and debate. a lot of hillary supporters think their candidate was treated unfairly by the DNC, and they find palin to be palatable (a lot of hill supporters and independents find the move to be a blast from mccain's "maverick past).
obama is losing the game of politics right now, the convention gave him very little "bump" in the polls, and mccain's selection took obama off the front page.
obama has to to a LOT of damage control right now, if he has ANY hope of catching the voters (reagan democrats, middle america) he lost with his "clinging to guns and religion" comment. (a point of record: obama lost 14 of 17 primary states after that remark in san fran...).
the press also seems to have stopped giving obama a pass. tony rezco and william ayers are seemingly fair game now, so all americans are going to hear a lot of things that have been confined to the blogosphere now...
and, dmchucky, WOMEN don't like michelle. WOMEN don't find her "incredible". in fact, when lurking a lot of the left leaning web forums (again, not the daily kos or du - they drnak the koolade completely...) MO seems to provoke a LOT of vile and bitterness from mainstream democrat women. the term "angriest woman in america" pops up a lot...
yeah, obama is in trouble.
I don't see how Gentle Giant's post lacked tact.
Although... come on, Giant. Hoghwash? Let's not use the H word, Okay? this is a family site.
"I'm on a daily basis saddened by the iron grip religion has on so many people's rational thought process and how eager so many of them are to pass this on to their children. Children who will then be academically handicapped, and maybe even emotionally scarred, when they find out that what their parents told them just isn't true.
Also one of the reasons why I have a hard time voting for any politician who proudly wears his or her religion on his sleeve. I want someone in charge of things who, when the sh*t hits the fan, doesn't resort to ineffectual prayer to their invisible sky daddy but actually uses his or her intellect and reasoning to get things done.
Most people who say they hear voices or talk to invisible beings we tend to look at as sad individuals who clearly have mental problems... yet another guy who says that he has received orders from god is elected president of the most powerful country on earth? How's that for ironic.
And I certainly can't take any politician who advocates ID be taught in public schools, e.g. Mrs. Palin, seriously either."
You don't find these paragraphs just a little out of line, Jade? If you don't than we can't come to an agreement. As I said before, I'm an evolutionist myself and I agree with his view on this, just not the way he said it.
I don't see how Gentle Giant's post lacked tact.
Although... come on, Giant. Hoghwash? Let's not use the H word, Okay? this is a family site.
Yes, yes I humbly apologize. That was a bit out of line... can I use the G word then? Gobbledygook?
Yeah, I know. I was just being sarcastic. I'm an evolutionist myself and I enjoyed your debate with the other guy. You did it in a way without attacking his personal beliefs. I wish some others on here would have shown the same respect.If they believe in God or a higher power they must be illogical nutcases that can't be taken seriously. [/sarcasm]Depends on whether they force themselves to ignore reality in order to maintain some sort of personal faith conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Most religious people, myself included, have no problem maintaining their spiritual life despite living in the "real world." Many, unfortunately, cannot.I do not have respect for beliefs not supported by data. Nor should I.
People have a right to believe what they want without having their houses raided, losing their jobs (assuming their beliefs don't interfere with performance of said jobs), or being tossed in jail. I don't (and would never) support closing churches or forcing people to change their religion. Their right to believe what they wish must always be respected.
That doesn't mean their views deserve to be respected. If they say/do/believe things that don't make any sense, I'm going to call them on it. Every time.
What should religion be treated differently? Or should my solemn belief that I'm Batman be "respected?"
The fact is that tolerance and religion have not, historically, gone hand in hand. If pointing that out makes me a bad guy in your mind, well, I can live with that. Tip-toeing around it to protect someone's feelings is the fastest way to a repeat performance.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
|
|
From the perspective of smaller scale species adaptation, I have zero complaints about evolution.
Even though it directly and absolutely contradicts the Bible?
I can understand a desire and willingness to parse the material concerning evolution to fit the Biblical account, but you ultimately hit a point where you have to parse the Biblical account to fit evolution.Genesis is very clear that birds and fish were created first, and that cattle and creeping things and wild animals followed. It is clear they were all in their forms to be named by Adam as soon as he was created. It is clear that every kind of each was created.
Nowhere in that is there any room for even microevolution. If you want to claim Biblical mandate be aware that at the moment you accept even the least aspect of evolution you are the one parsing and contradicting the Bible, not the scientists defining evolutionary processes.
On the issue of how life specifically began, and whether man serves a holier (meaning set apart) purpose, rather than being the latest adaptive model...that is where I believe demonstrable and wildly theoretic evolution diverge from one another.
The only problems with that are evolution does not describe how life began only how it progressed, and evolution does not prescribe in the least manner any non-biological purpose man may have.
Of course those are the only two issues you have, which leaves you needing something other than evolution to blame for those.But the evidence available for those things, while observable and plentiful, is not suggestive of fish becoming mammals or primates becoming humans.
Well actually, it is, just on a different scale.
And on that level I, and all Jews, can and do justifiably argue that there is no "evidence" for the "evolution" of Judaism into Christianity in the Tanakh.And it is in those presentations of evolution that a lot of hoaxes and manipulated data lie (like the two examples I gave before).
There are a considerable number of religious hoaxes and manipulated data over the centuries. Will you accept that those a priori prove that Christianity is only a "theory" and as dismissable as you assert evolution is?
There are also a significant number of hoaxes and manipulated data presented to support ID and its variants. Knowing those exist are you prepared to abjure ID as the seed of a tainted tree and stop supporting and perpetuating it?I do teach my kids about ID, and I teach them that some of what they learn in school is fact and doesn't discount God's role in creation. But some of what they are taught - perhaps more correctly the manner in which they are taught - is intended to directly contradict that. We Christians are only up in arms because our beliefs about education are continually marginalized.
And that is where a lot of people who do not believe in ID get up in arms. You are making a direct assertion that the manner of teaching evolution is intended to contradict a specific religious view. It is not. By making that projection of intent you cross over into creating a conflict between religion and science that does not exist outside of perception.
While you might rightfully assert you have never made that claim, some have. And when the assumption is made by students and ID is not even mentioned in the classroom, damage is done.
So then you and all other religious people are directly and fundamentally responsible for all the false claims made by various religious over the centuries and the damage they have caused? You are further responsible when science is not taught side by side in Bible classes so that all children have a chance to hear all sides?
Are you sure you want to accept responsibility for all of that, as well as the mandate for that degree of intrusion into religious study classes?
I think we can agree on primarily discussing the Christian church in this thread, since I'm sure the overwhelming majority of believers here belong to that particular faith.
Although "Christian church" is a bit ambiguous with all the different denominations which exists within it (if the teachings of Jesus and god are so infallible, how come all the different churches can't agree on them?).
There is no "christian church" that all christians and demoninations are members of, thus why I asked what "church" are speaking about? Since you could not be talking about a "christian church" because none exists. I was not sure if you aware of this, and thus wonder if there was a "secret christian church" out there that you believed exists.
Regarding my emphasis in your quote above:
A lot of science out there? Why not all of it?
Frankly, I don't know if they do or not as I am not a catholic. I was hestitant to claim they accept all of it and be branded as "putting words in their mouth", as you seem to think I am doing to you.
This just goes to prove my point about them being uncomfortable when science starts to break down even more walls and exposes more of the natural world and thus leaving the church with less and less to attribute to their god.
I fail to see how any comment by me or anyone else on this thread is proof of any such thing. Perhaps you are allowing your own expectations to blind you to see only what you wish.
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?
What do those have to do with supporting science? Those are moral issues. Is the catholic church saying condoms are not effective against AIDS? Are they making that claim? Please show evidence of official church statements to this effect (and not just some crazy priest for example).
Finally, stop putting forward claims that I have never made.
You did suggest that being religious could harm a student's academic abilities. And yet many people who are religious do quite well in all fields of academics, including science.
|
So was McCain's pick of Palin gimmicky or political? I would say Biden was a very political pick by Obama, and a touch 'gimmicky'. It is clearly meant to attract more centrist voters by choosing an 'old white guy'. While I understand that Obama didn't want his run for office overshadowed by Team Clinton, she did seem to be the obvious choice of running mates, considering how many votes she got in the primaries. I personally think if he had swallowed his pride and put her on as VP he would be the next president, hands down.
I think Derek was calling Obama the 'empty suit' not Biden. Biden unfortunately suffers from a spotty campaigning past, and a bit of baggage. What will make or break McCain's run is if Palin turns out to be as good as she appears at the moment. Will the press uncover something horrible in her backstory? No one can say at the moment, but the Internet Gnomes are hard at work scrutinizing every last iota ever published about her as we speak. Either way, it will be an intersting run for the money no matter what. I will thank McCain for revitalizing my interest in this election.
Palin is obviously a gimmicky pick. She reminds me of when the Republicans put up Alan Keyes to run against Obama for Illinois Senator in 2004. The fact that Obama had 15 years of local and state government experience and was a U of Chicago law professor while Keyes is a proven dingbat and political loser with negative charisma and political views to the right of Ghengis Khan didn't matter. Instead, the RNC reasoned that since both were black men, people who might be inclined to vote for Obama might instead vote for Keyes.
The same logic seems to apply to Palin. Again, the RNC seems to think that those who wanted to vote for Hillary will now vote for Palin instead, even though all their positions are radically different and Palin is 18 months removed from holding a ceremonial mayoral post in a town of 6000 while Hillary has spent the time since 1992 at the pinnacle of national and international politics. Hillary's main cause is to create a new health care system; Palin's "big" cause is to get polar bears off the endangered species list - however, issues don't matter, only gender matters. Personally, I find this to be beyond condescending. The only voters who will go from Hillary to Palin are the delusional ones and the PUMA types who would never have gone for the Democratic candidates anyway.
Having said that, Palin might help the McCain ticket, as she is a conservative talk radio favourite. She's anti gun control, anti abortion, doesn't believe in global warming and wants creationism taught in schools. As the 2000 and 2004 elections showed, there's a lot of people out there who like those positions, and many of those people don't care much for McCain.
Finally, what do you mean that Palin appearing to be good? Did you see her acceptance speech? She spent ten minutes talking about snow machines, before likening herself to Hillary and describing herself as the feminist choice. It was possibly the worst speech of the political season. Everything in her background makes her sound vindictive and petty, with little grasp of real issues. Have you seen that clip of her wondering about what the Vice President does all day, or the one where she says that, despite her son shipping off to Iraq, she hasn't really formed an opinion on the war? Also, the fact that McCain still feels the need to justify her pick in every speech he gives does not bode well for either her or his campaign.
A couple of points of clarification for everyone here:
1)Macroevolution (usually what people mean when they talk about evolution as something they have trouble believing) is a fact. We observe species divergence. Once you have cleared that hurdle of species fixity (and when you consider the rest of the mountain of data supporting the fact of evolution) there is no barrier to understanding that all life on this planet has descended, diversified, from a common ancestor which lived in the remote past.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
2)There is no 'Theory of Evolution.' Evolutionary theory is a huge area of inquiry and a theoretical/explanatory/predictive framework embracing a large number of theories which help us understand the fact of evolution (how and why it occurs, how fast it occurs, the nature of change at the molecular level, etc.). There is no 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution.' Darwin had lots of ideas. Like any brilliant person, he had many bad ideas and he changed his mind many times over the course of a lifetime. Subsequent inquiry has shown many of his ideas to have been wrong. But 150 years on, his theoretical core is still remarkably intact and useful for understanding the fact of evolution.
|
|
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?What do those have to do with supporting science? Those are moral issues. Is the catholic church saying condoms are not effective against AIDS? Are they making that claim? Please show evidence of official church statements to this effect (and not just some crazy priest for example).
Easy. Here you go. That took less than a minute.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
You're done trying to discuss this with me in a logical manner? Funny, I'm still waiting for you to start.
And posting that my point of view is morally wrong and indefensible and then running away? Well, I'll let folks draw their own conclusions about that.
Easy. Here you go. That took less than a minute.
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?What do those have to do with supporting science? Those are moral issues. Is the catholic church saying condoms are not effective against AIDS? Are they making that claim? Please show evidence of official church statements to this effect (and not just some crazy priest for example).
FATALITY!
Sorry, this is just getting too funny.
You did suggest that being religious could harm a student's academic abilities. And yet many people who are religious do quite well in all fields of academics, including science.
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. This is true whether or not you believe GG's original assertion.
|
|
a bunch of partisan stuff
lets see: no teleprompter, lots of eye contact, mentioned her husband's union membership, highlighted her fiscal conservative bonafides, good flow, very "middle america".
yeah, her speech sucked.
seriously, the democrats and lefties need to take off the blinders and realize NOT nominating hillary cost them the white house this year. in 64 days, the republican machine will be able to destroy the empty suit. they couldn't have done that to hillary, everyone is already aware of her negatives, highlighting them would just piss women off.
obama, on the other hand, has been just arrogant enough that most people won't care when he's torn apart...
(oh, and palin accomlished more SUBSTANTIVE things in her 18 months as governor of alaska than obama has in his entire career...)
but y'all just keep thinking that the empty suit who hasn't done anything in his career is just the man to take on the washington establishment. keep kidding yourselves. its fun to watch :)
Easy. Here you go. That took less than a minute.
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?What do those have to do with supporting science? Those are moral issues. Is the catholic church saying condoms are not effective against AIDS? Are they making that claim? Please show evidence of official church statements to this effect (and not just some crazy priest for example).
Bravo, you got me on that one.
Though doing a bit more research it looks like that though some in the catholic church believe what was linked to above, the bigger opposition to condoms (beyond being a form of birth control) is that "condoms increase sexual immorality, and sexual immorality increases the spread of AIDS".
But good catch. As I said, I am not a catholic.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
You're done trying to discuss this with me in a logical manner? Funny, I'm still waiting for you to start.
And posting that my point of view is morally wrong and indefensible and then running away? Well, I'll let folks draw their own conclusions about that.
The only view folks will get from your post is that you're a bigot. The reason why I'm "running away" as you put it is that I don't waste my time with hateful people like you. You're logic is so screwy that there is no way for me to debate you.
I don't see how Gentle Giant's post lacked tact.
Although... come on, Giant. Hoghwash? Let's not use the H word, Okay? this is a family site.
Humbug, I say!
but y'all just keep thinking that the empty suit who hasn't done anything in his career is just the man to take on the washington establishment. keep kidding yourselves. its fun to watch :)
We shall see. I admit I'm not wild about Biden, and think he was an attempt to make a "safe" choice, which seems unlikely to appeal to potential Obama supports. He should have picked Hillary.
|
|
a bunch of partisan stufflets see: no teleprompter, lots of eye contact, mentioned her husband's union membership, highlighted her fiscal conservative bonafides, good flow, very "middle america".
yeah, her speech sucked.
You know, I can't vote, so I don't have a dog in this fight. You are right that she was very 'middle America' and could quite possibly play well with a lot of people. Having said that, I still thought her speech was complete and utter twaddle, and I can't imagine who would switch from Hillarly to Palin. But I've been wrong before. :)
|
|
We shall see. I admit I'm not wild about Biden, and think he was an attempt to make a "safe" choice, which seems unlikely to appeal to potential Obama supports. He should have picked Hillary.
but y'all just keep thinking that the empty suit who hasn't done anything in his career is just the man to take on the washington establishment. keep kidding yourselves. its fun to watch :)
hill would have been the right choice. of course, if the dems had just picked hill for the top spot in the first place, well, the term "landslide" comes to mind.
oh, well, maybe the dems will get rid of dean for good now, dude's a screwup...
The only view folks will get from your post is that you're a bigot. The reason why I'm "running away" as you put it is that I don't waste my time with hateful people like you. You're logic is so screwy that there is no way for me to debate you.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
You're done trying to discuss this with me in a logical manner? Funny, I'm still waiting for you to start.
And posting that my point of view is morally wrong and indefensible and then running away? Well, I'll let folks draw their own conclusions about that.
Gary, saying my logic is screwy doesn't make it so. Nor am I hateful. But you can phrase your capitulation however you feel will best allow you to save farce- err, sorry. Save face.
|
|
You know, I can't vote, so I don't have a dog in this fight. You are right that she was very 'middle America' and could quite possibly play well with a lot of people. Having said that, I still thought her speech was complete and utter twaddle, and I can't imagine who would switch from Hillarly to Palin. But I've been wrong before. :)a bunch of partisan stufflets see: no teleprompter, lots of eye contact, mentioned her husband's union membership, highlighted her fiscal conservative bonafides, good flow, very "middle america".
yeah, her speech sucked.
"twaddle" is the substance of most american political speeches in the post-reagan era.
i just wish people would realize that obama is just as full of that "twaddle". dude's nothing special, i'm sorry to say.
vattinesse, for the record, i don't have a dog in this fight, my default party (libertarian) nominated the least libertarian person i can think of, and i won't vote for him. i guess i could go nader as the "FU" vote...
(texas is in no danger of going obama, so i can vote my conscience without much consequence...)
EDIT: and for the record again, i might have voted for hillary. the thought of bill's "third term" wasn't an unattractive prospect...
vattinesse, for the record, i don't have a dog in this fight, my default party (libertarian) nominated the least libertarian person i can think of, and i won't vote for him. i guess i could go nader as the "FU" vote...
Yeah dude, you got SCREWED on that one. Seriously. That sucks.
|
|
vattinesse, for the record, i don't have a dog in this fight, my default party (libertarian) nominated the least libertarian person i can think of, and i won't vote for him. i guess i could go nader as the "FU" vote...Yeah dude, you got SCREWED on that one. Seriously. That sucks.
trust me, i know...
i think the party reached its pinnacle with andre marrou ('92). all of paul's strengths, with none of his weirdness...
Gary, saying my logic is screwy doesn't make it so. Nor am I hateful. But you can phrase your capitulation however you feel will best allow you to save farce- err, sorry. Save face.The only view folks will get from your post is that you're a bigot. The reason why I'm "running away" as you put it is that I don't waste my time with hateful people like you. You're logic is so screwy that there is no way for me to debate you.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
You're done trying to discuss this with me in a logical manner? Funny, I'm still waiting for you to start.
And posting that my point of view is morally wrong and indefensible and then running away? Well, I'll let folks draw their own conclusions about that.
My saying so doesn't make it true, but reading any of your posts does.
My saying so doesn't make it true, but reading any of your posts does.Gary, saying my logic is screwy doesn't make it so. Nor am I hateful. But you can phrase your capitulation however you feel will best allow you to save farce- err, sorry. Save face.The only view folks will get from your post is that you're a bigot. The reason why I'm "running away" as you put it is that I don't waste my time with hateful people like you. You're logic is so screwy that there is no way for me to debate you.
It's strange to me how the left in this country talks of diversity and being open-minded. Yet, when it's religion, you can attack it at will. I'm done trying to discuss this to you in a logical manner. What you are saying is morally wrong and you can't defend it.
You're done trying to discuss this with me in a logical manner? Funny, I'm still waiting for you to start.
And posting that my point of view is morally wrong and indefensible and then running away? Well, I'll let folks draw their own conclusions about that.
Well, they're all out there and I stand by them (and am happy to discuss them). Folks are free to draw their own conclusions.
|
|
The fact is that tolerance and religion have not, historically, gone hand in hand. If pointing that out makes me a bad guy in your mind, well, I can live with that. Tip-toeing around it to protect someone's feelings is the fastest way to a repeat performance.
By contrast, religion isn't the sole repository of intolerance. That street goes both ways, y'know. You don't have to like or respect someone's beliefs or opinions, but you don't have to be a jerk about it either.
As I said before, I'm an evolutionist myself and I agree with his view on this, just not the way he said it.
Thanks for pointing me to the post you were referring to, Gary. Giant was accidentally condescending -- I think he was just speaking his mind, not thinking about the impact it would have on the devout -- with the sky daddy line. I concede.
However, I agree with his sentiment, up to a point (and please understand that what follows are my personal theories and I don't mean to offend anyone). It isn't god that causes reflex reactions so much as familial tradition. In this country many of the brightest people are not always being rational. Often, they're reacting in a knee-jerk manner according to the way they were raised and an only natural desire to adhere to one's traditions, easily led by anger and fear to eventualities that perhaps don't serve them at all or even work against their best interests.
Over the last week I took a centrist point of view while talking to two Christian Conservative friends of mine (seperate conversations). After talking macroeconomics and this and that for ten minutes... I noticed neither of them could fault the current administration for a single wrongdoing, or McCain's VP, who I consider to be an awful choice. It's like when I talked to a liberal friend years ago about how potentially dangerous I thought Michael Moore, as an icon, was for liberal causes and why they needed to make sure he didn't speak for them as often as he did. The guy couldn't hear a word I was saying. He turned red faced and started to twitch and sweat. What the hay?! Years later, he gets what I'm talking about and he's beyond having an emotional reaction over it. Now we can finally engage rational discourse.
Back to my main anecdote... now these friends of mine are brilliant, but clearly loyalists, incapable of criticizing the republicans on anything but occasional minor misteps in strategy. Finally, each of them just blurted, out of context with the rest of the conversation, "I'm not for abortion." And that's where the dialog ended, abruptly, and we switched to talking nonsense for fun.
And that's what it all really came down to. I think each of them has been programmed to make that one issue more important than all others. Abortion is not even in my top twenty for what needs focus in this world. For many people, it's number one. More important than the environemnt. More important than the economic health of our nation. More important than terrorism.
In the US, I think religion affects politics in this way... "If you're pro choice I won't vote for you unless both candidates are pro choice, in which case I'll just vote for the republican."
Many democrats don't treat abortion as an emotional high stake the way republicans do. They approach the issue academically... and that's why they're talking a lot of crap and not actually showing up to vote. Next time a college kid talks your ear off about politics, ask them if they voted and read their face to see if they're lying.
I was raised by a mother who could vote either way, but really studied each candidate. Because I respected her intellect, I grew up with a similar approach to voting. Now this isn't a rule, but I've found this to be generally pretty dern true: I think if you respect your parents, you probably vote the way they vote. If you don't respect your parents, you might vote the other way. If you lost respect for your parents temporarily, you'll vote the other way temporarily but then come back to what you know is 'right'.
Area plays into it as well. If you live in a red state, most of the people around you espouse god and country points of view. If you live in a blue state, it's the same thing. There's pressure to join the majority or be ridiculed. When I moved from Boston to NY as a kid I didn't take off the Red Sox hat, and I wasn't even a baseball fan. I was in a home depot wearing a Red Sox cap and a Mets fan who worked there gave me crap. Next stop, supervisor's office.
Online sites are 'area' as well. Conservatives are exceedingly well organized as a group (when a new conservative book hits stores, it always sells well in a quick burst because of the phone number/email trees the conservatives keep--it is staggeringly useful MO), and when they make an appearance on a forum they tend to form a wall of easygoing but well written rhetoric most people won't cross for fear of looking stupid. Occasionally the daring lone wolf liberal comes out and makes a snarky statement and then gets shouted down for their passion. But if liberals encroached as a group, they wouldn't have to show such zeal. They could slide in and create the same rhetorical red rover line, and then we'd have ourselves less of a mutual agreement society and a little more debate. But what's the point really? There are very few people who don't already know how they'll vote, and those fence sitters often vote, in the end, for what I'd call strange microreasons.
One day before the last election a Jewish friend here in NY said something like, "I'm thinking of voting Bush back into office because he bought a bomber for Israel."
"Really? That's why? Israel needed a new bomber?"
"Well... there was also that wolf in the forest commercial."
I think the only way I'm going to stay sane is in generally butting out of the political threads. Watching some people make such a huge decisions based on what I perceive to be simple animal behavior controls raises my blood pressure. And ultimately, who's really cares what I think? I'll bet no one even reads to the end of this monster post.
|
Well said, Jade. I agree 100% about blind party loyalties where everyone treats politics like we're talking Red Sox vs. Yankees, my team vs. yours. There is no open-mindedness, just tunnel-vision.
Many democrats don't treat abortion as an emotional high stake the way republicans do. They approach the issue academically... and that's why they're talking a lot of crap and not actually showing up to vote. Next time a college kid talks your ear off about politics, ask them if they voted and read their face to see if they're lying.
This I disagee with however, because I have seen some rabid libs get all fired up about any compromise on abortion. Even something as despicable as partial-birth abortion is allowed to continue because any pullback on it is considered opening the door on a repeal on Roe vs. Wade.
Sorry, but I'm gonna weigh in on the side of insensitive feelings-hurters everywhere and say religion has no place in politics. Ever. Pandering to voters beliefs in order to win is repellant in the extreme and should be subject to disdain not only from those of us that don't belive in the invisible friend, but from believers who should be intelligent enough to see the prostitution of faith for what it is-a ploy to win votes.
As a Libertarian I'm a great deal more interested in your energy policy, economic policy, and if you plan on restoring the lost personal liberties from the last fifty years or so of two party rule in this country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 6 Today's New International Version
Giving to the Needy
1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness in front of others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, even the rulebook says not to make a spectacle out of it.
By contrast, religion isn't the sole repository of intolerance. That street goes both ways, y'know. You don't have to like or respect someone's beliefs or opinions, but you don't have to be a jerk about it either.
That all depends on what you intend to do with those beliefs...
Planing on bringing them into my science classroom? Then I will break out my physics book, and proceed to make you look like a fool.
Planing on using them to deny civil rights to a class of people because you think that the way they express thier love is prohibited by your rule book? I will break out my Constitution and make you look like a fool.
Plan to use it to run the country I live in? I will call you on it every time it conflicts with the Constitution, common sense, or the not insignificant number of us out here that don't subscribe to your version of the rule book.
As taxpayers we (agnostics, atheists, deists, and others not believing in whatever rulebook your game plan is running out of)have the right to be represented too. And a lot of us would like some sound policy about things that your rulebook doesn't really cover. Like $4.00/gal gas, domestic spying, border security, and the impending failure of social security. So once we live is a country where all the non-theological issues have been addressed we can see about continuing the not so impressive history of running government like a religion.
On the other hand...
Planning to use your faith in church, your private school, or in a public forum not supported by my taxpayer dollars? Knock yourself out.
(P.S.- I use the term "rule book" above since I don't want to single out any one group. My disdain for religion in governance, especially in taxpayer funded situations, isn't limited to any one religion. All are equally unwelcome in politics when I already provide de facto funding through their 501c3 status)
vattinesse, for the record, i don't have a dog in this fight, my default party (libertarian) nominated the least libertarian person i can think of, and i won't vote for him. i guess i could go nader as the "FU" vote...Yeah dude, you got SCREWED on that one. Seriously. That sucks.trust me, i know...
i think the party reached its pinnacle with andre marrou ('92). all of paul's strengths, with none of his weirdness...
AMEN. I might have gone with the Hilmeister myself, and if Obama had put her in as VP I would have probably voted Democrat this year. As a frustrated Libertarian I can only watch and armchair debate. I'll still vote, but my electoral votes are already in Obama's pocket, so if I do vote McCain or keep to Nader like I had thought I would either way it really doesn't matter much this year. The day I vote for Bob Barr is the day Satan starts handing out snowshoes. That man brings political showboating to a whole new level. Hopefully the Libertarians learn their lesson. They had a chance to break out as a viable 3rd party alternative this year :(
some new testament realityshhhhhhhhh! quoting the source is underhanded! how unfair of you :)
like i've said before, the republicans would have me for a song if they'd just drop the fundies...
Yeah. It stinks that the whole fundamentalist wing has kinda engulfed the Republican Party. I don't mind if folks want to worship, but I feel kind of left out as a Panentheist in today's GOP. So I'll keep banging away at the Libertarians until they get rid of Barr, and hopefully one day we can become a viable alternative.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Out of curiosity, do the people who are in favor of Creationism being taught alongside evolution also want equal time given to Hindu creation myth, which is quite involved, and occupies time frames distinctly different from the Biblical ones? Or is this a case of "my religion is right and all others are wrong"?
Well, I don't want to offend anyone. It's likely my fault. But I see I have failed to make myself clear yet again.
In no way have I mentioned keeping a Judeo-Christian perspective on this ID thing. Precisely what I would like to see when classes discuss the theory of evolution is that what we know about evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of the world.
Some of you might teach fairly, but not everyone does, and that an agenda exists for packaged education curricula is the truth. Might not be your agenda, might not ever reach your classroom, but I have cracked open textbooks that still mention the hoaxes.
So, once again, the issue is not kicking evolution out of the class, or persuading eighth-graders to join my church. The issue is teaching that the two theories do not eliminate one another, or at the very least finding a way to ensure that agenda-oriented teachers are not exxaggerating the evidence to include something that provable evolution does not support.
So...I have been called a flat-earther, I have been accused of saying this is about my religion being superior to another, and that I accept the examples of adaptive evolution provided has been ignored. I wonder how I could be more clear, and I wonder how I can prevent words from being put in my mouth.
I guess until then, all I can do is thank a few of you for pointing me in a more informed direction, or at least showing me the consequences of not being more clear in the beginning. Scathing as it may have been, all I can do is try to learn something through the hail of arrows.
Precisely what I would like to see when classes discuss the theory of evolution is that what we know about evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of the world.
Anyone who understands the theory will be the first to back you on that. There needs to be a planet for life to evolve on, and life must exist... somehow... in order for that life to evolve. The theory is silent on those origins.
Some of you might teach fairly, but not everyone does
Some try to teach fairly, but are simply too ignorant of the basic science to do so. When I was teaching high school, some of the other teachers were phenomenally excellent, but on the other hand, some of my so-called "colleagues" weren't actually qualified to wash out the glassware, I'm sorry to say.
I wonder how I could be more clear, and I wonder how I can prevent words from being put in my mouth.
I certainly wasn't trying to do that -- which is why I asked a question instead of making some kind of blanket statement, and directed not at anyone in particular but to anyone who chose to respond. I can't speak for anyone else (no matter how well-meaning), but in my case I saw some of the things I deal with professionally being misrepresented, and figured I'd step in and make clarifications. I don't view it as a "debate"; we're all on the same side here, just trying to learn from each other. I'm sure you run into any number of people who make unfounded comments about Christians, but have absolutely zero knowledge of Scripture (I see that all the time). Equally, I run into any number of well-meaning people making unfounded claims about evolution, but lack understanding of the science behind it.
The fact is that tolerance and religion have not, historically, gone hand in hand. If pointing that out makes me a bad guy in your mind, well, I can live with that. Tip-toeing around it to protect someone's feelings is the fastest way to a repeat performance.By contrast, religion isn't the sole repository of intolerance. That street goes both ways, y'know. You don't have to like or respect someone's beliefs or opinions, but you don't have to be a jerk about it either.
I agree; intolerance rears its ugly head quite often without help from religion.
It isn't my intention to be a jerk, but logic comes first. I have absolutely no problem with many of the religious folks in this thread (Kirth, for example), because they understand the difference between science and faith. It is when people insist there is no difference, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, that I lose my patience.
I will not stand by and be called stupid and irrational to protects someone's false appraisal of their own competence. If you put your beliefs out there, be prepared to defend them. Can't? Too bad. Read a book. Take a class. It isn't my job to pretend your opinion deserves respect simply because it is your opinion.
AND LEST anyone come back and call me intolerant, please don't confuse tolerance with respect. Everyone is free to have and express their opinion without fear of legal reprisal or violence. That is tolerance. Show me a society where we have to treat everyone's opinions with equal weight, irrespective of the facts, and I'll show you a totalitarian nightmare.
|
Precisely what I would like to see when classes discuss the theory of evolution is that what we know about evolution is not an explanation for the beginning of the world.Anyone who understands the theory will be the first to back you on that. There needs to be a planet for life to evolve on, and life must exist... somehow... in order for that life to evolve. The theory is silent on those origins.
Some of you might teach fairly, but not everyone doesSome try to teach fairly, but are simply too ignorant of the basic science to do so. When I was teaching high school, some of the other teachers were phenomenally excellent, but on the other hand, some of my so-called "colleagues" weren't actually qualified to wash out the glassware, I'm sorry to say.
I wonder how I could be more clear, and I wonder how I can prevent words from being put in my mouth.I certainly wasn't trying to do that -- which is why I asked a question instead of making some kind of blanket statement, and directed not at anyone in particular but to anyone who chose to respond. I can't speak for anyone else (no matter how well-meaning), but in my case I saw some of the things I deal with professionally being misrepresented, and figured I'd step in and make clarifications. I don't view it as a "debate"; we're all on the same side here, just trying to learn from each other. I'm sure you run into any number of people who make unfounded comments about Christians, but have absolutely zero knowledge of Scripture (I see that all the time). Equally, I run into any number of well-meaning people making unfounded claims about evolution, but lack understanding of the science behind it.
I actually found your responses especially helpful Kirth. I actually do teach this stuff to my students and my background of emphasis in my Biology degree is in Evolutionary Biology. I've literally read more books on this subject than most folks even know exist. For cripes sakes I actually had to read the entire Origin of the Species in Darwin's original form. Talk about painful. Anyway, I am in complete agreement with you. You are just better at articulating it on a forum than I and for that I am grateful.
I hope that my contributions to this were seen for the attempt to educate that they were and not as personal attacks. I know Evolution, and I also understand the position of ID. As you so eloquently point out Kirth, Evolution does not preclude the existance of God or even try to address the question of the origin of the universe. Thats not what the Theory is about. I also think the misunderstanding between common uses of words like Theory and how science uses the same is partly to blame. A Theory in science isn't the same thing as a theory in the way the average non scientist uses the term.
Anyways, thanks for your contributions. I know I plan to steal some of the ways you frame things for my own classes on the nature of science and the teaching of Evolution. I wish my schedule let me keep up with some of the evidence from disciplines outside Biology as your geological examples were phenominal and in my own opinion more instructive than my own on antibiotic resistances, eukaryotic cell evolution, and dog breeds.
There is a lot of great stuff in this thread. Thanks to all participants.
I actually found your responses especially helpful Kirth. I actually do teach this stuff to my students and my background of emphasis in my Biology degree is in Evolutionary Biology.
Thanks, Brent. I'm glad that I could be of some help. It's also nice to know that I'm not the only one here with any sort of science background... I was kind of starting to feel like some kind of a mutant -- and not in the evolutionary sense. If you want a far better source than I can be, check out talkorigins, which someone mentioned upthread. Phenomenal site with all of the common misconceptions, and collected volumes of responses.
To get slightly back on topic...
So, Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock... whoops, should be interesting how they try and spin that.
When the Anchorage Daily News did report the news today, it pointed out: "The Daily News had asked Palin's press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant. 'I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant,' he said on Saturday."'
To get slightly back on topic...
So, Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock... whoops, should be interesting how they try and spin that.When the Anchorage Daily News did report the news today, it pointed out: "The Daily News had asked Palin's press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant. 'I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant,' he said on Saturday."'
And I agree. This is irrelevant.
To get slightly back on topic...
So, Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock... whoops, should be interesting how they try and spin that.When the Anchorage Daily News did report the news today, it pointed out: "The Daily News had asked Palin's press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant. 'I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant,' he said on Saturday."'
And I agree. This is irrelevant.
I generally agree with that too, but I'm sure it'll cause quite a ruckus among some voters. And pundits will surely try and spin it both ways. It could get ugly or it could be a non-issue.
I generally agree with that too, but I'm sure it'll cause quite a ruckus among some voters. And pundits will surely try and spin it both ways. It could get ugly or it could be a non-issue.To get slightly back on topic...
So, Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock... whoops, should be interesting how they try and spin that.When the Anchorage Daily News did report the news today, it pointed out: "The Daily News had asked Palin's press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant. 'I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant,' he said on Saturday."'
And I agree. This is irrelevant.
Hopefully it is the latter, though I too can see it going either way.
So, Palin's 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant out of wedlock...
I'd make a comment about abstinence-based sex ed, but if the daggone kids won't listen to the "be pure!" message, I guess it's unlikely they'd listen to the "use a condom" message, either. How is a high school kid competent to decide to have a baby? At 17, I sure as hell wasn't. Luckily, I was extremely careful, because my father promised to boot me out of the house if anyone got pregnant from me... and I looked in his face and knew without any doubt that he would do it.
This I disagee with however, because I have seen some rabid libs get all fired up about any compromise on abortion. Even something as despicable as partial-birth abortion is allowed to continue because any pullback on it is considered opening the door on a repeal on Roe vs. Wade.
Well that's why I said many. I've known my share of vehement liberal thinkers who approach the issue of abortion with fire and zeal, don't get me wrong, but I don't think their numbers compare in substantial way to people who will simply never vote for a pro-choice candidate. I just don't think the liberal's line in the sand is scored as deeply because their point of view is less institutionalized. I know they exist, but I don't personally know a republican that is pro choice. However, I do know a great many democrats who say they don't care what other people do, but that they personally would never have an abortion. So in my experience, one side has their minds seemingly made up while the other shows range on the issue.
How is a high school kid competent to decide to have a baby? At 17, I sure as hell wasn't. Luckily, I was extremely careful, because my father promised to boot me out of the house if anyone got pregnant from me... and I looked in his face and knew without any doubt that he would do it.
I demand dirty stories of your naughty youth. Please don't pull punches.
When Kirth unleashes his monstrosity on a lady, and she mentions that he's sort of hurting her, he explains that he fully understands her suffering because he's a buddhist. ;)
When Kirth unleashes his monstrosity on a lady, and she mentions that he's sort of hurting her, he explains that he fully understands her suffering because he's a buddhist.
I'm so gentle she feels like it's part of the natural order of the universe. Yeah, baby!