[mlqurgw]

Am I correct in saying that we have taken our discussion well off topic?

[mlqurgw]

I am going to have to leave this discussion. I must concentrate on other things right now. I have enjoyed it and must say that I have been treated with respect by those who hold to an opposing view. Thanks for challenging my mind.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I never said that the US was founded as a Christian nation nor have I attempted to make such an assertion. The author of the article I linked did but that doesn't mean that I agree with all he said. As a matter of fact I do not believe that the US was founded as a christian nation form the time of the Declaration. It was colonized by Christians seeking religious freeedom and in the hopes of becoming a place where God ruled. I certainly concede that the Enlightenment had a great influence by the time of the Revolution.

Again if memory serves, I believe that during the discussions(debates) on what should be included in the Constitution there were many who desired that there be a state religion. It was the Baptists from Rhode Island who sought seperation. Autonomy is a basic principle in the Baptist view. Men such as Issac Backus where sent to seek to gain the sympathy of the Continental Congress for the oppressed Baptists. At that point in history in the New England states it was illegal to be a Baptist.
I don't have the time right now to show the Baptist reasons for their stand on liberty and autonomy fron the Bible. I would have to do a little re-reading of several books and I have other things pressing on me right now.

Okay, okay, I think we actually agree with each other. Hi-five!

And yes, off topic this is. Though not so much... I mean, if there is a culture war in America, many conservative Christians use the line "America was founded as a Christian nation" as artillery. It's important to acknowledge that they are wrong!

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I am going to have to leave this discussion. I must concentrate on other things right now. I have enjoyed it and must say that I have been treated with respect by those who hold to an opposing view. Thanks for challenging my mind.

Likewise. It was a pleasure.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Ideally, I'd like to focus less on the justifications used by each side and more on who's actually winning.

Why is the US more religious than Europe and Canada? Will this change?

Will the religious right try and become more involved in politics? Less?

Will they give up the gay rights debate? Abortion debate? School prayer?

It seems as though they are slowly losing the gay rights debate-- as Mass. continues to do well with the gay marriage thing, will it become progressivly more difficult for the RR to turn around?

would there eventually be some sort of stalemate?

My personal opinion: the religious right will lose becuase they are running against science and the US is too dependant upon science. That is, at some point scientists will show biological factors of homosexuality and this will have a massive effect on the US populace. I predict a similar pathway with evolution and stem-cells.

The only hope for the religious right is to give up the fight against science and focus exclusively on purely moral issues such as abortion and school-prayer. Of course they won't, because they are all corrupt and power-hungery. So when they are beaten down by scientific facts, they'll run back into the closet for a few more years.

Thoughts?

[mlqurgw]

Why is the US more religious than Europe and Canada? Will this change?

I think it is because the US has been opposed to Socialist thinking and equates it with Communism more than Europe and Canada which are more socialist.

Will the religious right try and become more involved in politics? Less?

more, because they view it as good verses evil.

Will they give up the gay rights debate? Abortion debate? School prayer?

No for the same reason as above.

It seems as though they are slowly losing the gay rights debate-- as Mass. continues to do well with the gay marriage thing, will it become progressivly more difficult for the RR to turn around?

Only time will tell.

would there eventually be some sort of stalemate?

No more than there always has been. This war is one that will be continually fought in this country I believe. It has its ebb and flow on both sideds at different times. Political thought tends to swing in both directions and moves toward extremes. At some point the extreme begins to shift toward the opposite. The upper hand wil be gained by both sides at different points in time but will not be won by either side. They will simply continue to fight against each other.

The only hope for the religious right is to give up the fight against science and focus exclusively on purely moral issues such as abortion and school-prayer. Of course they won't, because they are all corrupt and power-hungery. So when they are beaten down by scientific facts, they'll run back into the closet for a few more years.

Of course the same could be said of the Humanists. Science continually changes. What you may view it as gaining more knowledge and improving others would say it only proves that science can't dogmatically prove anything as it is constantly showing itself to have been wrong on what it had previously thought to be true.

[mlqurgw]

Although I am drawn to this discussion, my last post will have to be my last.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I think it is because the US has been opposed to Socialist thinking and equates it with Communism more than Europe and Canada which are more socialist.

Not socialism--- secularism.

Incidentially, I care to remind you that under the Bush the government has grown something like 30%, and that ain't all defense-related activites.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

more, because they view it as good verses evil.

No for the same reason as above.

Interesting

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

Only time will tell.

nah. It's been 38 years since the SC made the southern interracial bans illegal. I bet anyone a shiny nickle than by 2042 (38 years after the 2004 mass gay marriage fiet) gay marriage is as accepted as interracial marriage.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

No more than there always has been. This war is one that will be continually fought in this country I believe. It has its ebb and flow on both sideds at different times. Political thought tends to swing in both directions and moves toward extremes. At some point the extreme begins to shift toward the opposite. The upper hand wil be gained by both sides at different points in time but will not be won by either side. They will simply continue to fight against each other.

I see it as the conservative movement is the break, the progressives the accelarator. As the enviornment changes the progressives want to move the country forward to adjust to it. But the conservatives serve as a break to make sure we don't progress too quickly. But eventually, the progressivists win and we are moved forward. Notice the national support for interracial marriage and the civil rights acts.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

Of course the same could be said of the Humanists. Science continually changes. What you may view it as gaining more knowledge and improving others would say it only proves that science can't dogmatically prove anything as it is constantly showing itself to have been wrong on what it had previously thought to be true.

Science seems to be on the side of secularists. this may change, but I doubt it.
I know most scientists agree with:
Evolution
Biological basis of sexual orientation
Enviornmental perogatives
Brith control

I think most scientists agree with:
Euthinasia
Assisted Suicide
Abortion policy

Science is very much on the side of the secularists. Actually, with science, popular media, and most educational fields in our grasp, it's hard to believe the religious right can even function.

[mlqurgw]

You have to continue to drag me in don't you?
This is the reason I said what I said. I tend to skew things to match my point of view as do you. As a child of the 60's I did hold to many liberal views at one time. But experience and observation have made me a consertative. I believe that to be the case for most of us. Youth has a tendency to see things idealogically and us old folks more practicaly. I do applaud idealism because it sparks new innovations but there is no argument against experience.
I agree that you have the mainstream colleges and the media for the most part. But that too is changing as homeschooling and private schools and Christian colleges are becoming stronger. As I said before the momentum will swing back and forth.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

You have to continue to drag me in don't you?

heh heh talk to Q.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

This is the reason I said what I said. I tend to skew things to match my point of view as do you. As a child of the 60's I did hold to many liberal views at one time. But experience and observation have made me a consertative.

Errrr. I'm as conservative as you, probably more. I'm borderline libertarian (or at most Jeffersonian democrat). Why do you guys equate secularism with socialism/economic liberalism? I'm economically conservative, socially liberal. The only reason I vote democratic is because I hate the religious right and military excess more than I hate the new-deal type programs.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I believe that to be the case for most of us. Youth has a tendency to see things idealogically and us old folks more practicaly. I do applaud idealism because it sparks new innovations but there is no argument against experience.

I think what you're describing is an illusion. When you were a youth, it seemed obvious to you that interracial marriages were okay (and if this isn't true, you wouldn't admit it anyway). Conservatives didn't want this. then society advanced. Now it's okay for interracial marriages but not okay for gay marriages. Now conservatives okay interracial marriages and liberals okay gay marriage. You see, your stance always remained the same-- it's just the world progressed around you.
Tell me, how is banning gay marriage and stem cells practical? I'm sure the necon fight against euthinasia is all related to 'practicallity.' Give me a break.

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

I agree that you have the mainstream colleges and the media for the most part. But that too is changing as homeschooling and private schools and Christian colleges are becoming stronger. As I said before the momentum will swing back and forth.

We will always have colleges becuase we'll always have science. And science is tied to our mainstream colleges. So unless you want to have homeschooling for college kids, prepare for them to be secularized once they enter college.

Oh, and also, college is now just the minimum for education. Most leaders and doctors will need a masters as a minimum and perhaps even a doctorate. And as all studies show, you become more secular with more education (through this is all correlation, not causation).

I also think we'll have media control for a long time, simply because the hollywood and NY industries will always attract the more free-thinking, secular crowd. the current religious mumbo-jumbo is just a fad. And Im' sorry, but everyone knows all the good bands are associated with satan

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's wrong would be the biggest, though the fact that abstinance-only courses actually result in *higher* pregnancy and much higher STD rate than no education at all.

Yea, I suppose "it's wrong and it causes deaths" would by high on my list of what wrong with it... but we are leaving the topic.

Point taken.

You to yours, me to mine, hitler to his. What's your point?

My point is that you are trying to get schools to teach only your bias rather than letting people just teach. A lot of subjects in higher education can contradict religion, but that doesn't mean that the religious element should be eradicated. I, personally, am not religious but think it quite unnecessary to eliminate Christian teachings in order to live my life. Christians typically don't believe in evolution. Christians don't believe in moral relativism (something else taught in schools). Psychology totally dismisses any kind of spiritual realm in its analysis of human behavior, and I'm sure Christians don't agree with that. The point is not that we have biases, but that your utopia would have a society filled with people having a bias like yours.

Education isn't here to teach us the truths of the universe (or it fails miserably). It is here to exercise your mind. If the teaching of Creationism exercises your mind as much as the teaching of Evolution, then what's the problem? Is it that you can't stand for there to be a society in existence that has dissenters? Dissenters not of establishment, but of YOUR worldview?

I look forward to your support on that. Do you feel the same about teaching only a heliocentric solar-system?

Of course not. We're talking about completely different things here. However, if there was a large religious faction of people that believed in heliocentrism, I would be against the force of other knowledge upon them. Live I've said, I am not against religion although I'm not religious. It sounds like you would love nothing more than to simply destroy the Christian religion by forcing people to believe in evolution. Won't happen anyways.

Ironically, I know of no better a way to prepare for jobs than brainwashing. Do you have some nieve' belief that Jobs hire the most skilled people and reward innovation? I've worked for some of the biggest in the industry and can assure you that they do not.

I don't claim to have the answer, but the point is that we should be careful about education. Using it to damage the culture of a people is clearly tyrannical and outright oppressive.

Actually, he believe that it should teach the truth, and that it should teach the infomation that actually matters to the industry. In both cases, that's evolution.

The thing is, schools don't teach truth. They teach half-truths. Even about evolution.

Funny way of saying "offensive". Why don't you go say them on the pulpit at your church and see if that's a secular issue. Don't forget all the other national derogatives though, or the Aryian Nation church you appear to go to (based on the first three that came out of your mouth) won't prove my point as, like you, they hate homosexuals, blacks, and women.

First of all, I don't hate homosexuals, blacks, or women. All prejudices aside, let's get to the point. People like you who think you are enlightened and basically have all the answers for humanity and ultimate reality are a more dangerous threat to my society than Fundy Christians. You base your whole life and beliefs around what you perceive as "reality" and you try to enforce that "reality" upon other people. You try to tell people what to think, when to think it, what to say and when to say it. Those examples are just how you try to take the language of a people and make it blasphemous. People used to say "______" and it was derogatory. I'm not racist, but I can't say "______" in front of a black person because it would be "offensive". There, you've basically eliminated a word from a culture. That culture, because it doesn't fit into your little mindset of what culture should be (because you're also arrogant about your culture) is now diminished. Soon enough, we won't be able to say the word "woman" because you won't allow me to draw a distinction between men and women, like you're trying to keep people from drawing a distinction between whites and blacks. The irony of it all is that you're just as prejudice and hate-mongering as the man who says "______".

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Let's take your example. What does economics have to do with biology? Did you realize that Darwin's theory came out at a time when many were incredibly interested in the new idea of capitalism? Capitalism posits a "natural selection" which predates Darwin's ideas. It is undeniable that economic ideas at the time greatly influenced Darwin's theory of evolution. It is also helpful to look at a single concept--the idea of natural selection--and see how it applies both to organisms and corporations.

Perhaps it's economics we should force people to learn. Capitalism should be indoctrinated into everyone.

It sounds creepy just saying that.

When I think of a profession with an "-ist" at the end, like economist or biologist, I generally think of a person who is capable of forming theories and expanding the way we look at his or her field. Economists don't just plug numbers into equations. Accountants do, and there are trade schools for that.

Economists actually do plug numbers a lot. It's the undergraduate economics stuff that's more theoretical. PhD programs involve a lot of numerical analysis. Quite boring, eh?

So what would you call someone who does not believe in evolution despite the many cases of observed speciation? Or who does not believe in evolution because "the eye can't evolve," when it has been shown that it can? There are no facts that point away from evolution and there are copious facts that support it.

What would you say to this: I'm an economics major, but some of the theories involved with capitalism simply do not work out like they should in th real world. This is why some people do not think capitalism is the best form of economic organization. However, because of the theories, many people believe in it and try to make it work, although it means departing somewhat from pure capitalism. Perhaps the same could be for evolution? Maybe people don't see that as the best way of organizing or describing the changes in life.

[JerryLove]

My point is that you are trying to get schools to teach only your bias rather than letting people just teach. A lot of subjects in higher education can contradict religion, but that doesn't mean that the religious element should be eradicated.

The government should not sponsor / promote a religion. This is harmful to every other religion (and non-religion), it is a standard with no boundries, and is the opposite of *why* so many migrated to America in the first place.

Psychology totally dismisses any kind of spiritual realm in its analysis of human behavior, and I'm sure Christians don't agree with that.

If you would like someone waving crystals, praying, sacrificing a chicken, or aligning your chi; don't go to a psycologist. That's not his field.

The point is not that we have biases, but that your utopia would have a society filled with people having a bias like yours.

There are many Christian psycologists, and christian doctors, and christian evolutionists. Similarly, there are Satanists, Muslims, Buddists, Wiccians, Shamanists, Shinto, Unitarians, Agnostics, Athiests, Quakers, Santaria-ists, and most everything else.

So whose spirituality would you have taught? And from which source? Would you like the schools teacher of religion to teach Catholic or Baptist? Calvainist or Armenian? Hindu or Muslim?

Education isn't here to teach us the truths of the universe (or it fails miserably). It is here to exercise your mind.

Where did you get that crap from?

Is it that you can't stand for there to be a society in existence that has dissenters? Dissenters not of establishment, but of YOUR worldview?

Look at the ad-hominym... and so blatently untrue.

Of course not. We're talking about completely different things here.

We are? How is heliocentracism different from evolution?

However, if there was a large religious faction of people that believed in heliocentrism, I would be against the force of other knowledge upon them.

How many? 1? 10? 10,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? How many people must believe in something before you oppose correcting their error?

Live I've said, I am not against religion although I'm not religious. It sounds like you would love nothing more than to simply destroy the Christian religion by forcing people to believe in evolution. Won't happen anyways.

Another adhominym. Try discussing the post please... unless you have no case and are desperate.

I don't claim to have the answer, but the point is that we should be careful about education. Using it to damage the culture of a people is clearly tyrannical and outright oppressive.

Using eduction to teach true information that some people have not accepted is "tyrannical"? Wow, you are inventing some terms.

The thing is, schools don't teach truth. They teach half-truths. Even about evolution.

Depends on where in school you are talking about. Also depends on how you define "half-truth". The point being that they [should] teach things which are true (evolution, heliocentracism) rather than things that are false (creationism, geocentracism).

First of all, I don't hate homosexuals, blacks, or women. All prejudices aside, let's get to the point.

What happened to your earlier words (faggot, ______, woman)? But hey, the ______s will be glad to hear you don't hate them for having more melanin in their skin.

People like you who think you are enlightened and basically have all the answers for humanity and ultimate reality are a more dangerous threat to my society than Fundy Christians. You base your whole life and beliefs around what you perceive as "reality" and you try to enforce that "reality" upon other people.

So I should not tell people that the Earth orbits the sun, that having sex with a virgin will not cure AIDS, that math does indeed work, and that virui are not spread through smells?

Why, by the way, is "reality" in quotes? Do you disbelive in reality? If so, why are you arguing with a non-existant person?

You try to tell people what to think, when to think it, what to say and when to say it. Those examples are just how you try to take the language of a people and make it blasphemous. People used to say "______" and it was derogatory. I'm not racist, but I can't say "______" in front of a black person because it would be "offensive". There, you've basically eliminated a word from a culture. That culture, because it doesn't fit into your little mindset of what culture should be (because you're also arrogant about your culture) is now diminished.

Some black guy beat you up as a kid?

Soon enough, we won't be able to say the word "woman" because you won't allow me to draw a distinction between men and women, like you're trying to keep people from drawing a distinction between whites and blacks. The irony of it all is that you're just as prejudice and hate-mongering as the man who says "______".

I'm just glad I can still say _______. That way we can discuss you. Not offended are you?

[JerryLove]

Perhaps it's economics we should force people to learn.

So you are flip-folpping?

This is why some people do not think capitalism is the best form of economic organization.

Semi-socialist capatalism has been the most effective that has been tried... not based on a theory, but on the results (all the most powerful economies have been some mix of capatalist and socialist).

However, because of the theories, many people believe in it and try to make it work, although it means departing somewhat from pure capitalism.

Perahps because of the difficulty and danger of trying to abandon an exstiing, functional, system for an untested or failed one.

Perhaps the same could be for evolution? Maybe people don't see that as the best way of organizing or describing the changes in life.

Or heliocentracism, or boyancy, or light-theory, or gravity, or any of the hundreds of other theories?

Economics isn't a science, in that it doesn't deal with a physical thing. Well, that's true in intent if not literal word-meaning. Social sciences are seperate from "hard sciences".... why you see organizatoins of "science and economics". "Theory" doesn't really mean the same thing.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The government should not sponsor / promote a religion. This is harmful to every other religion (and non-religion), it is a standard with no boundries, and is the opposite of *why* so many migrated to America in the first place.

Is this grounds for the government actively subverting religion?

If you would like someone waving crystals, praying, sacrificing a chicken, or aligning your chi; don't go to a psycologist. That's not his field.

My point is that psychology is a pseudo-science. It cannot nor will it ever be able to precisely explain human behavior.

There are many Christian psycologists, and christian doctors, and christian evolutionists. Similarly, there are Satanists, Muslims, Buddists, Wiccians, Shamanists, Shinto, Unitarians, Agnostics, Athiests, Quakers, Santaria-ists, and most everything else.

Right on.

So whose spirituality would you have taught? And from which source? Would you like the schools teacher of religion to teach Catholic or Baptist? Calvainist or Armenian? Hindu or Muslim?

I would let Catholics teach Catholicism, Calvinists Calvinism, Evolutionists Evolutionism, etc.....

Where did you get that crap from?

My experience in higher education. I find myself in almost every class assessing how my teachers explain subjects through the lens of their own world-view.

Look at the ad-hominym... and so blatently untrue.

I don't know if it is untrue, Jerry. We've discussed a lot of things on this board from relativism, politics, economics, etc. I feel like you are a consistent attack on religion and opposing culture in general.

We are? How is heliocentracism different from evolution?

Heliocentrism isn't a scientific theory. It's like looking at two cups of different color and saying "the red one is on the left". Evolution is a scientific theory that uses many accepted conclusions to make a broader conclusion. I think parts of evolution are correct, but as a whole I think it's pretty incomplete.

How many? 1? 10? 10,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? How many people must believe in something before you oppose correcting their error?

But is it error for people to have their own half-truths even when they contradict yours?

Another adhominym. Try discussing the post please... unless you have no case and are desperate.

Well, what practical purpose does it serve to eliminate cultural beliefs?

Using eduction to teach true information that some people have not accepted is "tyrannical"? Wow, you are inventing some terms.

Wake up. EDUCATION DOES NOT TEACH "TRUE" INFORMATION!

Depends on where in school you are talking about. Also depends on how you define "half-truth". The point being that they [should] teach things which are true (evolution, heliocentracism) rather than things that are false (creationism, geocentracism).

No, all schools teach half-truths.

What happened to your earlier words (faggot, ______, woman)? But hey, the ______s will be glad to hear you don't hate them for having more melanin in their skin.

You are just a simple person, aren't you?

So I should not tell people that the Earth orbits the sun, that having sex with a virgin will not cure AIDS, that math does indeed work, and that virui are not spread through smells?

You can tell people whatever you want. So can I. So can someone who believes all that stuff.

Why, by the way, is "reality" in quotes? Do you disbelive in reality? If so, why are you arguing with a non-existant person?

Well, this is more of a philosophical position, but I do believe in reality. I also believe that because no two people are alike, no two people react to reality in the same way, and therefore have different perceptions of reality.

Some black guy beat you up as a kid?

Ha. No... why would you think that? What's your point? Perhaps you aren't reading well...

I'm just glad I can still say _______. That way we can discuss you. Not offended are you?

Well.. scathing, aren't we? We should cool off. It's just a little discussion...