|
Ben Stein, about his movie:
---
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
Well, I don't know. Ben is a smart guy, but sometimes...
But, on the flip side, it's like Hill expressing her admiration for the Eugenics loving Margaret Sanger.
I honestly wonder if any of these people really know what they're saying sometimes...
|
I tried to post this earlier, but it got eaten. Regarding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has stated that the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Furthermore, when they established the Sherbert test in the 1960's, the Warren Court stated that there must be a compelling public interest for the government to restrict religion.
This means that it a group asked to have the Ten Commandments put on display in a court house, or a park, or where ever; the fact that they are of a religious origin is not enough to prevent such a display. If a group of Buhhdists wanted to then display the Four Noble Truths on the other side, that would also be allowable. If an atheist group wanted to write up something called the Atheist Creed and have it displayed on the other side of the Ten Commandments, that is also Constitutional. However, if an atheist group wished to have the other two displays removed, simply because they don't believe in God, that would not be Constitutional because it favors non-religion over religion.
Remember that the First Amendment was not meant to prevent religion or even religious iconography in the United States. It was meant to prevent the possible establishment of a state denomination. Therefore, so long as the government is not using the display of the Ten Commandments to promote a specific religious group, but just as a display of Christian beliefs, and as long as the opportunity is provided for all other groups as well, if they wish, then the Ten Commandments themselves do not violate the First Amendment.
|
|
And, Pres Man, I never said we should give up as you inferred in your last response to my post.
I said that the border is uncloseable, it won't work, don't waste money and resources on stupid stuff that doesn't work.
Use it on something that will work, instead of something useless that will play to the fears of everybody.
Closing the border would be a symbolic jesture at best.
It's a moot point. It won't work.
Closing the border will not work.
It won't work.
Closing the border will not work.
I just want to make it clear to you what I'm saying this time.
It's a useless jesture, Pres Man.
They should use finite resources on something that will work.
Don't flail in the quicksand, you'll sink faster.
Closing the border is a useless jesture.
It won't work.
|
|
Heathy, I know first hand that it won't work. But let the people with no experience in running the border dream their myopic dream.
Wasting money is a national pastime, after all...
Edit: Read my post on the subject above. It's the only thing that would work, to be honest. Anything else is a pipe dream...
|
|
Heathy, I know first hand that it won't work. But let the people with no experience in running the border dream their myopic dream.
Wasting money is a national pastime, after all...
Edit: Read my post on the subject above. It's the only thing that would work, to be honest. Anything else is a pipe dream...
Yeah; I agree.
The Great Wall o' China?
Didn't work....
Just to point out, one can be an agnostic and a christian (I know this for a fact as an agnostic christian). Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist.I dunno. Can you believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and still not be sure what you believe? Certainly there are details that range in importance and my level of belief in them. A good example is the current debate our men's group is having related to Reform views (election and predestiniation) and Arminian views (responsibility and choice on man's part).
Or do you mean it's possible to be Christian and not feel you have all the answers, just that you know who does? And that's not intended to sound trite...I am just trying to understand the idea of a Christian agnostic.
Well from the definition thanks to Wikipedia:
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself.
I could believe that the existance of God is inherently impossible to prove, but still believe in his existance. For some that is the definition of faith, belief in that which cannot be proven. In a way I am I guess a agnostic Christian. On he other hand I am not sure we don't see signs of him in every day living, so maybe I'm not. :)
As a Presbyterian I was raised to believe in predesitination, and I do believe in it. My very definition of God seems to demand it is true since I would define God as all knowing, and all powerful. God therefore has the power to know that at creation I would in my life do XYZ, and thus I could say I am predesitined to do XYZ. But I feel certain God isn't worried about my understanding such things, as long as I try my best to do his works here on earth and keep my faith well God will be just dandy with me. I figure He's a bit laid back about such things honestly.
|
|
Heathy, I know first hand that it won't work. But let the people with no experience in running the border dream their myopic dream.
Wasting money is a national pastime, after all...
Edit: Read my post on the subject above. It's the only thing that would work, to be honest. Anything else is a pipe dream...
Yeah; I agree.
The Great Wall o' China?
Didn't work....
Yeah. And the Mongols didn't make nearly as much profit as the guys south of the border stand to make...
My score, btw: Me: 276, The Guys trying to stop me: 1
(of course, that "1" was a pretty serious "win" for them, and that one loss made me retire ;) )
I tried to post this earlier, but it got eaten. Regarding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has stated that the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Furthermore, when they established the Sherbert test in the 1960's, the Warren Court stated that there must be a compelling public interest for the government to restrict religion.
This means that it a group asked to have the Ten Commandments put on display in a court house, or a park, or where ever; the fact that they are of a religious origin is not enough to prevent such a display. If a group of Buhhdists wanted to then display the Four Noble Truths on the other side, that would also be allowable. If an atheist group wanted to write up something called the Atheist Creed and have it displayed on the other side of the Ten Commandments, that is also Constitutional. However, if an atheist group wished to have the other two displays removed, simply because they don't believe in God, that would not be Constitutional because it favors non-religion over religion.
Remember that the First Amendment was not meant to prevent religion or even religious iconography in the United States. It was meant to prevent the possible establishment of a state denomination. Therefore, so long as the government is not using the display of the Ten Commandments to promote a specific religious group, but just as a display of Christian beliefs, and as long as the opportunity is provided for all other groups as well, if they wish, then the Ten Commandments themselves do not violate the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When I read that I see congress being restricted, not state governments. A State court unless their state constitution says otherwise could display what it likes based on the First Amendment. I thought the case involing the Ten Commandments was in a state court building, could be wrong haven't looked into it.
|
|
I tried to post this earlier, but it got eaten. Regarding the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has stated that the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Furthermore, when they established the Sherbert test in the 1960's, the Warren Court stated that there must be a compelling public interest for the government to restrict religion.
This means that it a group asked to have the Ten Commandments put on display in a court house, or a park, or where ever; the fact that they are of a religious origin is not enough to prevent such a display. If a group of Buhhdists wanted to then display the Four Noble Truths on the other side, that would also be allowable. If an atheist group wanted to write up something called the Atheist Creed and have it displayed on the other side of the Ten Commandments, that is also Constitutional. However, if an atheist group wished to have the other two displays removed, simply because they don't believe in God, that would not be Constitutional because it favors non-religion over religion.
Remember that the First Amendment was not meant to prevent religion or even religious iconography in the United States. It was meant to prevent the possible establishment of a state denomination. Therefore, so long as the government is not using the display of the Ten Commandments to promote a specific religious group, but just as a display of Christian beliefs, and as long as the opportunity is provided for all other groups as well, if they wish, then the Ten Commandments themselves do not violate the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When...
Actually, the 14th Amendment kind of invalidated the 10th Amendment without repealing it. The Feds use the 14th whenever they want to force a state to follow their rules.
Actually, the 14th Amendment kind of invalidated the 10th Amendment without repealing it. The Feds use the 14th whenever they want to force a state to follow their rules.
Well it didn't really, but the court has used it to do so.
It's part of why I believe we need a new amendment to control the court. Term limits, 7 year renewal of appoints, and a renewal of the 10th in whole.
|
|
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship. I wonder what offer the Democrats offered him. After all, if Frankin wins the recount, this gives the Dems their filibuster proof majority. If he doesn't, I bet this isn't the last moderate Republican to jump ship.
|
|
Actually, the 14th Amendment kind of invalidated the 10th Amendment without repealing it. The Feds use the 14th whenever they want to force a state to follow their rules.Well it didn't really, but the court has used it to do so.
It's part of why I believe we need a new amendment to control the court. Term limits, 7 year renewal of appoints, and a renewal of the 10th in whole.
If the SCOTUS uses it to be so, it is so. Reality trumps theory every time, unfortunately...
|
|
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship.AND.....this just in......the sky? Blue.
Officially?
Edit: It appears that he was afraid of losing a Primary challenge. Honestly, as Heathy implied, I don't expect his voting will change much since he already voted with the Dems most of the time.
|
|
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship.AND.....this just in......the sky? Blue.
Snowe and Miller are next. Oh, well. Lieberman isn't a partisan, so there's still hope. And Coleman will probably win his case in the Feds, Minnesota dropped the ball on this one.
Balance is best. The years from '94 to 2000 were pretty good, Dems prez, Repub Congress was a nice combo, imo...
The reverse? Not so much...
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship.AND.....this just in......the sky? Blue.Officially?
Edit: It appears that he was afraid of losing a Primary challenge. Honestly, as Heathy implied, I don't expect his voting will change much since he already voted with the Dems most of the time.
He is doing whatever it takes to get re-elected really. His chances in the republican primary were near zero after his last few votes. Hell he's been called a Rhino for so long it's not a shock.
If the SCOTUS uses it to be so, it is so. Reality trumps theory every time, unfortunately...Actually, the 14th Amendment kind of invalidated the 10th Amendment without repealing it. The Feds use the 14th whenever they want to force a state to follow their rules.Well it didn't really, but the court has used it to do so.
It's part of why I believe we need a new amendment to control the court. Term limits, 7 year renewal of appoints, and a renewal of the 10th in whole.
Sadder part is that amendment is so shaking anyway, the 14th would never pass muster if how it was passed is really looked at.
|
|
Sadder part is that amendment is so shaking anyway, the 14th would never pass muster if how it was passed is really looked at.If the SCOTUS uses it to be so, it is so. Reality trumps theory every time, unfortunately...Actually, the 14th Amendment kind of invalidated the 10th Amendment without repealing it. The Feds use the 14th whenever they want to force a state to follow their rules.Well it didn't really, but the court has used it to do so.
It's part of why I believe we need a new amendment to control the court. Term limits, 7 year renewal of appoints, and a renewal of the 10th in whole.
Yeah, forcing states to ratify it as a condition of reentry into the nation isn't coercion at all...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Charles Schumer is blaming Bush for the fact that Air Force One did a 1000 ft flyby of the Statue of Liberty yesterday. How long are the Democrats going to be able to get away with blaming Bush for everything? There is no way that the Bush administration could be responsible for this.
Try again. Bush was flying the plane! ;-)
Edit: That is a nutty thing to blame. Is the logic something like "Bush changed the air safety rules?" Is there any logic at all?
|
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship. I wonder what offer the Democrats offered him. After all, if Frankin wins the recount, this gives the Dems their filibuster proof majority. If he doesn't, I bet this isn't the last moderate Republican to jump ship.
Thus, why I voted against him in 2004.
|
|
Charles Schumer is blaming Bush for the fact that Air Force One did a 1000 ft flyby of the Statue of Liberty yesterday. How long are the Democrats going to be able to get away with blaming Bush for everything? There is no way that the Bush administration could be responsible for this.Try again. Bush was flying the plane! ;-)
Edit: That is a nutty thing to blame. Is the logic something like "Bush changed the air safety rules?" Is there any logic at all?
We're talking Schumer here - Is logic ever a part of the words coming out his mouth.
|
|
Charles Schumer is blaming Bush for the fact that Air Force One did a 1000 ft flyby of the Statue of Liberty yesterday. How long are the Democrats going to be able to get away with blaming Bush for everything? There is no way that the Bush administration could be responsible for this.
You're joking, right? Are you for real?
|
|
We're talking Schumer here - Is logic ever a part of the words coming out his mouth.Charles Schumer is blaming Bush for the fact that Air Force One did a 1000 ft flyby of the Statue of Liberty yesterday. How long are the Democrats going to be able to get away with blaming Bush for everything? There is no way that the Bush administration could be responsible for this.Try again. Bush was flying the plane! ;-)
Edit: That is a nutty thing to blame. Is the logic something like "Bush changed the air safety rules?" Is there any logic at all?
Schumer is one of those arguments against both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design...
|
|
Charles Schumer is blaming Bush for the fact that Air Force One did a 1000 ft flyby of the Statue of Liberty yesterday. How long are the Democrats going to be able to get away with blaming Bush for everything? There is no way that the Bush administration could be responsible for this.Try again. Bush was flying the plane! ;-)
Edit: That is a nutty thing to blame. Is the logic something like "Bush changed the air safety rules?" Is there any logic at all?
Nope, the reason was that Bush appointed a political appointee to run the FAA and Obama hasn't replaced him with his own political appointee. Thus it was the FAA's fault that the White House ordered Air Force One to fly past the Statue for a photo op. Even better, Obama is now saying he only knew about it when the story ran on the Nightly News and his press secretary told reporters that they should "go ask the White House," about the incident.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Nope, it was Bush appointed a political appointee to run the FAA and Obama hasn't replaced him with his own political appointee. Thus it was the FAA's fault that the White House ordered Air Force One to fly past the Statue for a photo op. Even better, Obama is now saying he only knew about it when the story ran on the Nightly News and his press secretary told reports that they should "go ask the White House," about the incident.
That is dumb.
|
Arlen Specter is officially jumping ship. I wonder what offer the Democrats offered him. After all, if Frankin wins the recount, this gives the Dems their filibuster proof majority. If he doesn't, I bet this isn't the last moderate Republican to jump ship.
What they're offering him is a free ride in the primary. He's up against a Republican challenger for his senate seat that is trouncing him in early polls.
By switching parties, he can be a Democrat, LET that guy win the Republican nomination, and then spend his $$$, and use his name recognition, to beat him in the actual election instead of the primary.
It also probably doesn't hurt that being in the majority party opens up lots of committee chairmanships.
Basic politics 101. The first #1 job of any politician is to win elections. He's taking care of job 1.
|
|
Nope, it was Bush appointed a political appointee to run the FAA and Obama hasn't replaced him with his own political appointee. Thus it was the FAA's fault that the White House ordered Air Force One to fly past the Statue for a photo op. Even better, Obama is now saying he only knew about it when the story ran on the Nightly News and his press secretary told reports that they should "go ask the White House," about the incident.That is dumb.
"Dumb" has been the government's modus operandi for 8+ years now, with no end in sight...
[quote=]Stopping murders is impossible, it won't work, don't waste money and resources on stupid stuff that doesn't work.
Use it on something that will work, instead of something useless that will play to the fears of everybody.
Stopping a few murders would be a symbolic jesture at best.
It's a moot point. It won't work.
Stopping murders will not work.
It won't work.
Stopping murders will not work.
I just want to make it clear to you what I'm saying this time.
It's a useless jesture, everyone.
They should use finite resources on something that will work.
Don't flail in the quicksand, you'll sink faster.
Trying to stop murders is a useless jesture.
It won't work.
Yup, let's stop wasting our time trying to enforce all laws. I mean, people are still going to break them, so why bother trying to stop them. It ... just ... won't ... work.
Stopping murders will not work.
Yup, let's stop wasting our time trying to enforce all laws. I mean, people are still going to break them, so why bother trying to stop them. It ... just ... won't ... work.
I have to admit that I feel your analogy is a bit flawed. Heathy was pointing out that it's too late to stop the flu by sealing the border. Water under the bridge, and all that. And to prevent a murder before it happens, you'd need to be standing right there and intervene; it's not about "punishment." So to make a more congruent analogy, you might say: "Punishing murderers won't bring back the victims, nor will it magically stop all other murderers." Which is true.
I'm not to saying that executing a murderer isn't useful: it prevents that particular person from ever murdering again. Like putting people in the airport who have fevers into quarantine until they recover and are no longer contagious. But that's case-by-case; it doesn't do anything to address the larger issue.
Heathy was pointing out that it's too late to stop the flu by sealing the border. Water under the bridge, and all that.
The problem is arguing from a binary perspective. Either you have 100% success or 100% failure. In fact you can have some successs and some failure. Yes, increasing border security will not keep the disease from getting in, that doesn't mean it will not slow down the number of cases. If a sick person doesn't enter the US then they are not here, that is one case that is not in the US. If two people are stopped from entering, that is two cases that are not here. And so on. The fact is, it is not a case of "its already happen so now it is too late, water under the bridge all that." Because people are still coming. The water is still flowing, you can try to divert it or you can say, well the flooding has started so let's let the whole thing keep flooding. In for a foot, then in for a mile.
I know, why don't we just infect everyone with the disease and then deal with that? I mean, you can't stop it, you think handwashing is going to save you? Why bother, let's just expose everyone now and deal with it all at once, because it doesn't pay to you know try to slow down the rate of infection, that is dumb. [/sarcasm]
I know, why don't we just infect everyone with the disease and then deal with that? I mean, you can't stop it, you think handwashing is going to save you?
If you mean, infect everyone with the mild cases we're currently seeing in the U.S., as opposed to the deadly ones we're seeing in Mexico, I'd be in favor. Get a bit sick, recover, and you have immunity (or at least some resistance) to a nastier case. Kind of like a primitive vaccination method.
The thing to remember is that agnostic simply means that you don't agree with organized religion. One can believe in Christ and the Bible and still believe that all churches have strayed from the path.Just to point out, one can be an agnostic and a christian (I know this for a fact as an agnostic christian). Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist.I dunno. Can you believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and still not be sure what you believe?
Believing and knowing (with objective evidence) are two very different things. And no David, being agnostic does not mean rejecting organized religion. It is rejecting the egotism of thinking you can truly know the unknowable. I don't know if God is real, he hasn't presented a flaming bush to me, didn't have the angel choir come and sing at my window or any of that. On the other hand, I have seen things that are so unlikely that coincidence is unbelievable.
Instead I met her online when she posted an ad saying she liked Sci-Fi, because a "voice" in her head said to her that she needed to stop being "proper" and instead look for a guy with similar interests as her ("I wanted to date someone that knew who Mr. Spock was!"). After a first "bad" date (actually we got mixed messages and thought the other wasn't interested), I was set to write her off, when after talking to my Dad, who I don't look to for advice at all. He said if I was really interested I should keep trying to talk to her. I did and things have been splendid ever since.
She says she can't believe how right am I am for her, and I tell her if we had met back in 1994 (when we both were at college), I wouldn't have been. It is the experiences since then that shaped me into the person that could appreciate her. Now sure those coincides aren't outside the chances of probability, but sometimes, I just "feel" that there is something else at work. Can I prove it? No. Do I know it for a fact? No. But I "feel" it.
[spoiler omitted]
John Travolta and Samuel Jackson, in Pulp Fiction.
What does it matter, everyone knows we're all gonna die.
Well, yes, but because we are going to create Frankenstein’s Monster or Skynet which will then kill us.
What does it matter, everyone knows we're all gonna die.Well, yes, but because we are going to create Frankenstein’s Monster or Skynet which will then kill us.
Actually, it will be the Poodle Flu that will kill us all.
|
|
Actually, it will be the Poodle Flu that will kill us all.What does it matter, everyone knows we're all gonna die.Well, yes, but because we are going to create Frankenstein’s Monster or Skynet which will then kill us.
Isn't the chief symptom of that yellow spots on your carpet?
Actually, it will be the Poodle Flu that will kill us all.
Someone is requesting a termination? Where is the offending meatbag?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Joe Lieberman was one of our senators the whole time I lived in CT; he sponsored me to West Point. Conservatives affectionately called him a "DINO" (exactly analagous to Specter's "RINO" appelation); liberals ranted that it was "no fair" that we had two Republican senators. Anyone who's at all moderate gets disowned by their own party and overly-warmly received by the other.
Fascinating that Lieberman is considered by some to be a moderate because he strays from the party on line on exactly one issue. He is considerably left of center on most issues he has voted on.
And note that I still have tons of respect for him. I get the feeling he believes what he says when he talks about issues. I might disagree with him, but I don't despise him as a demagogue the way I do most of the liberal leaders in government these days.
And yes, I know there are disingenuous 'conservatives', though I am loath to share the label with them.
I don't use the term 'agnostic' the way it was used in a previous post, but I concede that no denomination likely has it all right. However, the beauty of the Bible is that the important parts are communicated to us 'that we can know we have eternal life'. I might disagree on some deeper theology with another Christian, and we might not agree on how important the issue we disagree on is, but we can boil it down to John 3:16 or Romans 5:6-8 and take it from there. I wouldn't call a person that doesn't feel vertan about how literally to take the book of Daniel an agnostic. But I do get your point. I believe the prominent points of the Baptist faith and message, but I wouldn't guarantee anyone I'm a 5 point calvinist, and you won't hear me discussing amillenialism at gen con. Probably.
More in a sec.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Basic politics 101. The first #1 job of any politician is to win elections. He's taking care of job 1.
When it has counted, Arlen Specter has been a Democrat for a long time. If we could have replaced him, McCain and Lindsay Graham a long time ago, we might all be in a better place. I know they would be.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Ben Stein, about his movie:
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
Okay..having seen a portion of that movie, I am gonna make an effort.
I believe Ben Stein is a pretty reasonable guy. In the movie he marvels at the complexity of the cell and doesn't seem to dislike 'science' as a pursuit of knowledge. However, in this context, 'science' has been used as a poltical tool in many areas - not the least of which has been a secular, murderous curiosity about eugenics before and during the Holocaust. In that sense I can see a legitimate fear that government using science to push ID out of the conversation could be a step to something larger. I am not trying to engage the ID in schools debate..I'm not totally decided on that. I am just trying to understand what that quote means when a guy like Ben Stein says it.
Now, to me, it is not the same thing as saying that a belief in micro-evolution (if I'm using that term correctly) is a belief that life started accidentally on the backs of crystals. Ben Stein lives in a world that has seen one holocaust, and seems noncommital about preventing the next one, as madmen insist that their brutality entitles them to nuclear weapons. I think in his case a little paranoia is warranted. We might pause to empathize with that.
But, I never saw anywhere in that movie (I didn't watch all of it) where Stein or another chronicler states that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is evil. Just that the methods by which science becomes orthodoxy these days bear some similarities to this world's second darkest hour.
I know..someone is going to accuse me of defending the conservative crackpots while railing against the liberal crackpots. But is Ben Stein a crackpot hater compared to Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich or (grrr) Michael Savage?