That's nothing ros. Small dollars.
They had the Superbowl. A ceremony designed to make the American male feel macho whilst sat on a couch munching on chips and drinking Abbey Well beer (A joke you won't get) out of cans so that, thereby, he couldn't be identified with such feminised ideas as drinking out of glasses.
Hey--I like this "ignore" function. My fans can have a laugh at those who don't know they are being laughed at like when the elite of Paris used to include a visit to the asylum as a part of a good night out.
Although there is a suspicion that the Superintendant bribed the inmates to act it up a bit in those days.
An atheist I know, who doesn't preach about it--he reckons that if they wish to think it's a blushing bride that has been "given" to them by the tuxedoed father, it's alright by him--was in hospital and a nurse hove into view in horn-rimmed specs and a clipboard resting on her perfectly formed forearm, and she asked him what his religion was--in case anything happened I presume--although you never know-- it could be a marketing survey--and he said "what's your's love?" and she said she was a three times a day novice priestess of the Zoroastran faith so he said put that down it sounds as good as anything else.
I just scrolled through the Forum Index and I suddenly noticed I was ignoring loads and loads of A2Kers.
I apologise folks. You're all great. It's my fault for being short of time.
Berthold Brecht said that a type of alienation is necessary in order to conduct a dispassionate argument.
As this is a science thread it is necessary to have dispassionate argument. To not have dispassionate argument takes us into the realm of belief systems and those are to be avoided like the plague if we are to remain scientific.
It is obvious that Brecht's statement is true and therefore posters need to be alienated which we might all agree is not very nice.
But by "type" of alienation I think Brecht meant a temporary alienation put on for the purpose of the argument and which can be discarded the rest of the time. It seems to me that it is only during such a phase of temporary alienation that genuine wit can arise. Brevity being simply a technique. The dispassionate facts are the source of wit due to their ridiculousness.
This is all very well in matters which are not too personal but the sexual selection aspects of Darwin's theories , the real nub of the issue, do involve peronal matters; the ironic erection, which Flaubert specialised in, being a minor case in point, and this nexus is the real problem for the theory in the classroom and in the school board, editorial suite and even court-room considerations of the subject,as we have seen. And it is where the psychsomatic problem is at its sharpest and most penetrating.
There are more than two sides here. There are two sides of those who are aware of this approach, theologians, and there are two sides of those who are not and which bring emotional subjectivity arising from numerous possible sources to the table. Evidently subconsciously. The side which is aware of the dispassionate approach and opposes religion can only be motivated by a cynical motive and those who are aware and who support religion can only be motivated by an appraisal of social consequences. These two sides might be accused of emotional involvement but then everything becomes so and the anarchists and nihilists are left to command the intellectual battlefield.
The sides which are not aware of these considerations might just as well be writing Christmas cards to each other or supporting two opposing football teams.
I would claim that I am the only poster on this thread who can achieve that type of alienation Brecht speaks of and which is necessary for serious work on a science thread. I can easily drop it too, in the pub or when my boiled eggs are too hard for example.
This, to me, is the explanation of why I am abused so much and treated with disdain by posters who are emotionally involved in these issues and who have no capacity for detachment from their own interest. It is also the explanation of why anything I post touching on these sensitive areas is ignored and recourse had to subjects which are emotionally neutral or second-hand reports of them. Tenth hand often as with wande's quotes. There's a range of "ignore" functions and getting an automatic one is really naff.
However, Darwin in the classroom, unlike gravity in the classroom, or plant biology, cannot avoid this nexus between the science and personal sensitivity as it is central to the whole theory, reproduction being the powerhouse of evolution, and the reason there has been such a hot debate for 150 years about it. There is even food industry sensitivity to dietary science.
To pretend that the nexus doesn't exist, as even happened at Dover never mind in other places of smaller significance, is a total cop-out on the science, and those engaged in such a base betrayal are in no position to give lessons on the princples of science to those dispassionate observers of the passing scene who steel themselves occasionally to face the facts.
So much fun has been had over the years from rendering artistically the ridiculousness of the human race, from Homer onwards, that it seems to me that those who bring their subjectivities into a scientific debate are afraid of being thought ridiculous and suffer from what Dylan called the "disease of conceit".
From the theologian's point of view they have no sense of humour. They can only laugh invidiously and not objectively because the only really funny things are those we all do and to laugh at that would compromise their sense of self worth. Which means they are not laughing but snarling.
Very nice presentation at the link you provided, Rosborne. Thanks.
What a cop out!!
A really fancy version of the "ignore" function.
Five billion years eh? Surreal.
What don't you like about the here and now?
Cool-as in deep freeze.
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LAWSUIT AGAINST UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Quote:Judge throws out religious discrimination suit
(By RANI GUPTA, The Californian, August 8, 2008)
A federal judge in Los Angeles has thrown out the remaining claims of Calvary Chapel Christian School, which sued the University of California alleging university officials rejected some courses for credit because of their Christian viewpoint.
U.S. District Judge James Otero said in a summary judgment ruling released Friday that the school had failed to show evidence that UC officials had violated the First Amendment rights of the five Calvary students who sued along with the school and the Association of Christian Schools International.
Robert Tyler, an attorney who represented Calvary, said Friday night that the decision will be appealed.
"We always believed we were going to have to get up in the higher courts before we would get a ruling that would be favorable to us," said Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a religious liberty law firm in Murrieta.
In March, Otero threw out the Christian school's broader claims that UC policies were unconstitutional on their face. Friday's ruling concerned Calvary's claims that the policies were also unconstitutional as they were applied in the review of several classes.
Otero wrote that Calvary "provided no evidence of animus" on the part of university officials, whom he said had a "rational basis" for determining that the proposed Calvary courses would not meet the UC college preparatory requirements.
For instance, a UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups."
Another university professor agreed that the textbook from Bob Jones University shouldn't be used for a college-preparatory history class because it didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover "major topics, themes and components" of U.S. history, Otero wrote.
The judge said Calvary provided little admissible evidence to the contrary.
The court also ruled that UC officials had a rational reason to reject a course called World Religions for elective credit.
University reviewers had asked Calvary to accurately identify the book because they could not verify its existence and asked the school to show how the class "treats the study of religion from the standpoint of scholarly inquiry," Otero's ruling said. He said Calvary provided no evidence they had tried to clarify the content.
"[T]he course rejection feedback makes clear that the course may have been approved with minimal clarification," the judge wrote.
University officials have said they approved 43 courses from Calvary Chapel, which Tyler said Calvary students have used to gain admission to UC schools. There are other ways to be admitted, such as high test scores. However, Tyler said he fears schools will become afraid to teach from a Christian perspective.
"We're worried in the long term, Christian education is going to be continually watered down in order to satisfy the UC school system," he said.
A university spokesman could not be reached for comment late Friday.
wande-
What denomination does the Calvary Chapel Christian School represent and how many members does it have.
spendius wrote:wande-
What denomination does the Calvary Chapel Christian School represent and how many members does it have.
Spendi,
The school was represented by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) which provides services for many private Christian schools. The ACSI claimed that the university's refusal to grant college admissions credit for history and science courses that used bible-based textbooks is religious discrimination. The judge held that the university had a "rational basis" for rrejecting the courses (the courses did not adequately prepare high school students for college level history and science classes). The students who suffered from the inadequate high school classes were given alternative means for qualifying for college admission.
Non denominational, fundamentalist, evangelical
About Calvary Chapel
wandeljw wrote:FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LAWSUIT AGAINST UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Quote:Judge throws out religious discrimination suit
Another one bites the dust.
You're tweeting again ros.
Calvary Chapel is a minor cult.
When are you going to get a Catholic case into your argument.
You are using this minor case to try to pretend that a religious education in a Christian school disqualifies kids from UoC.
USA Church membership tables don't even mention your stalking horse.
You are deliberately trying to mislead A2Kers on this matter which has also nothing to do with the thread subject. You're trolling bigtime.
No wonder you accuse others of trolling.
Are you suggesting Judge Otero is in your camp? There are over 50 million Catholics in the US and 151 million Americans call themselves Christians.
You don't belong on a science forum. Your blatant and scheming partiality disqualifies you. You haven't a scientific bone in your body.
I think you have personal reasons for your level of subjective bias.
Quote:Judge throws out religious discrimination suit
(By RANI GUPTA, The Californian, August 8, 2008)
"We're worried in the long term, Christian education is going to be continually watered down in order to satisfy the UC school system," he said.
Doesn't this tell it all. He thinks that the problem is that "Christian education" is going to be watered down. All that any sane person is asking is that that "Christian education" meets certain minimal standards of
education.
You have to laugh at wande thinking that-
Quote:The school was represented by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) which provides services for many private Christian schools. The ACSI claimed that the university's refusal to grant college admissions credit for history and science courses that used bible-based textbooks is religious discrimination. The judge held that the university had a "rational basis" for rrejecting the courses (the courses did not adequately prepare high school students for college level history and science classes). The students who suffered from the inadequate high school classes were given alternative means for qualifying for college admission.
was a satisfactory answer to the polite request-
Quote:What denomination does the Calvary Chapel Christian School represent and how many members does it have.
seeing as how it was wande himself who brought the CCCS to our attention and is making such a big fuss over it despite it having nothing to do with the thread title which he, himself, chose.
In rugby, where they don't allow the forward pass, it's called an "interception."
Welcome to the thread JTT.
Quote:Doesn't this tell it all. He thinks that the problem is that "Christian education" is going to be watered down. All that any sane person is asking is that that "Christian education" meets certain minimal standards of education.
Have you any idea what that sounds like to seasoned readers here JTT? Do you really think we haven't covered that?
This is Science. You need to be able to define a concept like "wife", or "husband" properly to come on here. In evolution only turtle-doves understand such things and there's a suspicion they have an ulterior motive.
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins
___________________________________________________
Some denominations are closer to the truth re science than others.
spendius wrote:Welcome to the thread JTT.
Quote:Doesn't this tell it all. He thinks that the problem is that "Christian education" is going to be watered down. All that any sane person is asking is that that "Christian education" meets certain minimal standards of education.
Have you any idea what that sounds like to seasoned readers here JTT? Do you really think we haven't covered that?
This is Science. You need to be able to define a concept like "wife", or "husband" properly to come on here. In evolution only turtle-doves understand such things and there's a suspicion they have an ulterior motive.
I can't imagine that there isn't anything that hasn't been covered in this thread, Spendi, including, how to change the wax rings on toilets. No matter how many times it may have been covered, it still amazes me that a person could mouth such nonsense.
How do they ever expect to be taken seriously, truly!
