2
   

Creationism in a cheap tuxedo... Dubya's dance partner

 
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 08:40 am
lol, thanks joe. Glad you like the goat cookies.

Setanta- I was over on another thread similar to this one and i was talking basically with the same opinion... the other was about education though. ANYWAY, there was this person who pointed out that we are no longer a christian nation, so a few christians cannot push their beliefs on a whole nation. At first i thought WTF but then i realized the most basic truth of all.

We are a democracy. So if it is true that the christians are a minority, that is refelcted in the votes. So anything i should say would be pointless.

While i would prefer for anyone who hated so much what america was baised on to just take a hike so that things can remain in a more original state, that can never happen, because with this country's standards was included "every man is created equal" and everyone has the right to vote baised on what they believe.

Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 08:43 am
America is a secular nation in which people have the freedom to express themselves within the law. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . it may not sink in with you, but people can love America, love what it stands for, and still not want anything to do with christianity. What errant bigotry . . .
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 08:44 am
<--- errant biggot. *does errant biggot dance*
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 08:45 am
BreatheThePoison wrote:
There are plenty of countries that dont believe in the same standards and principals as America did for so many years, so why cant the people who so heatedly despise those things go find another country. It happens all the time... people move to Cananda, Mexico, Europe....


Well, that's true though. We don't believe in the same standards and principals as America. Actually, we eat babies.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:09 am
We were founded on the same thing every other nation was founded on... the desire to possess the land at any price. Period. SOME of our founding fathers gave lip service to being Christians while starting a war to take the country away from the people who finacned its settling, slaughtering the Natives and burning witches at the stake and putting people into the stocks and importing them pesky but handy nigras, but I'll bet none of that made Jesus especially happy.

My preference in life of course is to go about my business peacefully and have others do the same, but understand this. This leave your place of birth if you don't agree with me **** does not float. And that's an AMERICAN attitude. Who the hell do you people think you are anyway?
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:20 am
BreatheThePoison wrote:
While i would prefer for anyone who hated so much what america was baised on to just take a hike so that things can remain in a more original state, that can never happen, because with this country's standards was included "every man is created equal" and everyone has the right to vote baised on what they believe.

Smile


did i not make the acknowledgement of the error of my opinion clear enough yet? i'll re word it.

My opinion does not float with most people, i agree with that. And i realize the my opinion is not democratic. Its a belief in a pipe dream that i had, and i realzed that. I realize that we cannot always get what we want, we have to allow whats most accepted by the whole.
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:23 am
old europe, you have confirmed what i suspected.... you eurpoian baby eaters you. lol.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:40 am
BreatheThePoison wrote:
<--- errant biggot. *does errant biggot dance*


kudos, btp!!

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:40 am
What is it with religion and Americans?

Go ahead, practise your religion but just don't make it a requirement for those who don't practise your religion to live within its precepts or be affected by them. I like the idea of your Founding Fathers - freedom from religion.

My understanding of the US is that it's a secular state and not a theocracy. That seems to me to be a good idea because a secular state is capable of allowing within it any number of religions which, as long as they don't breach the law of the secular state (baby-eating is out) can be practised by their adherents.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:43 am
BTP,

Perhaps you should address the quite obvious fact that a huge majority of those who call themselves Christian, aren't Christian. They never act like it.

If more people actually ACTED Christian than this would be a Christian nation. Instead, it is a secular nation, because of the simple fact that Greed is far more important to the American way of life than Morality or Religion.

Do you think you would really be happy living in a Theocracy? I doubt it. There are ramifications that you may not have thought through...

Cheers tho; you put together a far more cogent argument than most proponents of your beliefs ever do.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 09:57 am
Cycloptichorn-

You make a good point also. This wouldnt even be a topic had more christians been simply that. Christian in their behavior. And i suppose in my zeal i have never considered what the ramifications of a theocracy would be. I think the Roman catholic chuch in midevil england proved just how far a "christian" theocracy would be willing to go.

i put together better arguements because i want truth, not to sway the beliefs and opinions of others and myself. and i dont believe i know everything, or much of anything for that matter. The only thing i ever assume i know is what i believe.

Goodfielder make a good shot too. If we are secular then why are we always freaking out about religions....
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 10:57 am
BTP,

The US is more moral today than it was 150, 100 or even 50 years ago.

This seems to contradict the crux of your rhetoric. Do you care to defend your implication of moral decay?
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 11:06 am
mor·al (môrl, mr-) adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Based on what I was programmed to believe is right and wrong, good and bad I see a fading of moral fortitude in the world around me.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 11:30 am
BTP,

Religious people always say that there is a fading of "moral fortitude" in the world around them. This is a great way to justify religion.

Is there any factual reason for you to believe this?

150 years ago in this country there was slavery and general persecution of women. Poor people for the most part stayed poor and died early.

100 years ago there was no support for the poor and lynchings. Old people died in poverty and the preventable infant mortality for black children because of inequity in society was far higher than the number of abortions today.

50 years ago there was legalized segregation based on race. Women who were battered by their husbands were pressured to "treat him better".

You probably are considering abortion and homosexuality as your big issues today. But you should know that even based on a narrow-minded "Christian" view, [/b]we are a more moral soceity today than we were before.[/b]

We have stopped babies from dying by changing our society to support people in poverty. This saves more babies than stopping abortion ever would. Doesn't this count as a moral victory?

Aren't things like ending slavery, stopping people from being lynched and ending judgement of people based on the color of their skin-- moral issues? Do you think the fact that homosexuals can now married is more important that the fact that people aren't getting murdered by angry mobs?

The "we are getting less moral" line is a myth, and it is used by every generation.

I think that by any measure, our society is getting more moral.

... unless you were "programmed" to believe that we can let babies die of poverty as long as they aren't aborted, or that stopping abuse (and even murder based on race is less important than keeping people from getting married if they are gay.

I don't believe you are that morally backwards.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 11:34 am
but ebrown, because these moral advancements are not trumpeted and presented under the banner of Jesus and organized Christian religion they are of no value to the kind of Christian who espouses the views of our friend BTP.

Style, not substance is the watchword. These people think if Jesus came back today he'd be dressed like Uncle Sam.
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 11:55 am
I dont think he'd be dressed like uncle sam.... Smile

I dont think abortion is a moral distress, i think what causes the unwanted babies is a moral issue. Whether or not abortion is condoned or leagalized doesnt make a difference, if i woman does not want her pregnancy she will find a way to rid herself of it.

On the topic of homosexuality, i have quite a few friends who are gay and bisexual. these are friends. They know full well what i believe, but they also know full well that i love them as people, not as lables. I believe what i believe, and i dont expect them to agree or conform.

I didnt say that american moral is dead. Freeing the slaves, equality of women, equality of the races, all these things were moral stands that were taken, moral battles fought and won. And they do have value to me.

Why should i try to explain or defend my views, when you have already decided that you disagree. *shrug*
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 12:03 pm
why indeed?

The greater question is why would you expect, after coming into the field of play rattling your saber and spouting "you should get out of the country" rhetoric taking a distasteful non existent moral high ground would you then expect calm and reasoned dialog? You set up the rules of play.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2005 12:03 pm
BreatheThePoison wrote:
I dont think he'd be dressed like uncle sam.... Smile

I dont think abortion is a moral distress, i think what causes the unwanted babies is a moral issue. Whether or not abortion is condoned or leagalized doesnt make a difference, if i woman does not want her pregnancy she will find a way to rid herself of it.

On the topic of homosexuality, i have quite a few friends who are gay and bisexual. these are friends. They know full well what i believe, but they also know full well that i love them as people, not as lables. I believe what i believe, and i dont expect them to agree or conform.

I didnt say that american moral is dead. Freeing the slaves, equality of women, equality of the races, all these things were moral stands that were taken, moral battles fought and won. And they do have value to me.

Why should i try to explain or defend my views, when you have already decided that you disagree. *shrug*


You obviously don't have to explain or defend your views. I am challenging them for three reasons.

One, is that if you are unable to explain your belief that we are getting less moral, then maybe I am doing you a favor. I appreciate when someone challenges my beliefs, and when I find there is a crack in them I revise them (or ditch them) to resolve the inconsistancy.. This has happened many times in my life and even a couple of times here. It makes me a better person.

Two, if you are able to explain your beliefs than perhaps you are right. In this case you are doing me a favor as now I know that your opinion is at least supportable and perhaps better than what I now believe.

Three, this particular belief is used to justify actions in society that I feel are harmful. If people believe that society is going to hell in a handbasket... they are much more likely to take extreme positions. This is not what we need in our current divided society. It is harder and harder to be a moderate and this belief espoused by many religious people (and some liberals as well) is part of my angst.
0 Replies
 
BreatheThePoison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 10:13 am
We had to unexpectantly do some kitchen renovations. It looks like this thread has died out. I took to heart what you had to say ebrown_p and thought i might do a little digging.

before i start writing, i posted this once in my writings here: the spell checker sucks on this site, so i dont use it, my spelling is horrible, thanks to my public education in a time when those in charge decided phonics was a thing of the past. so bear with my horrible spelling.

Your main points about moral fortitude in our past were, slavery, womens rights, the poor, and segregation.

As it turns out, it was a bunch of religious fanatics who pushed those topics into the ligistraits face. Christians and quite a few Quakers, and others concerned with moral fortitude on a national level.

Along with quite a few of his cabinet members Lincoln was a devote Christian who fought against the weakening of our nation by the confederacy leaving the union, and the issues of slavery.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html
Womens rights were actually active in this issue as well as pushing the right to vote, the right for equality, and more liberal view on devorce so that battered women could leave their abusive husbands.
Lucretia Mott, Susan B Anothony, Lucy Stone, a few big names in the movement, Mott and Anthony were both Quaker, while Stone actually started the Woman Christian Temperance Union.
http://www2.worldbook.com/features/whm/html/whm010.html
http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/sba/bio.html
http://www2.worldbook.com/features/whm/html/whm008.html
Segregation was brought into the headlines by one little christian woman who lit a fire under the butts of those in power. Rosa Parks was Christian.
http://www.leaderu.com/critical/colson-parks.html
Martin Luther King JR. was a minister.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/bio.html
Kennedy was Catholic... although he wasnt quick to act on his civil rights promises, he did eventually scoot things along.

For centuries Christian, as well as non-affiliated charities and not for profit groups have aided the poor and homeless at home and abroad. offten pushing these pressing issues into the lime light.

I already voiced my stand on abortion and homosexuality.

These people all fought and bled and argued for moral reasons, along with many others.

So no, I dont believe that these improvements in our history do not count. But instead believe that theyre more proof that people of faith who were convicted by what they believed to be a moral fading in socity around them, fought according to what they believed to make things more moral.


and i believe that just like everyone else, we should voice and fight for what we believe in, whether it is truely right or wrong.

If everyone remained moderate, then any change available would be made some good iam sure, and others harmful. And no one would notice or care, but simply go with the flow. its the people who believe that society is going to hell in a hand basket who push for any kind of change.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 11:22 am
If we are going to teach Intelligent Design, why expose kids to only ONE version of ID? The whole point is to provide multiple viewpoints, right?

http://www.venganza.org/

Quote:
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg



Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 07:11:58