Pat Robertson quote / Church kicks out all Democrats

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Where did this non-sequiter come from?

I have no problem with Christmas being a government holiday.

It has to be a holiday for practical reasons: a majority of people would take off anyway.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It is a government holiday - does anybody seriously think it should not be?

Of course it should be a recognized holiday--all I am saying is that it was never celebrated as a religious holiday until very recently. It was celebrated much like St. Patrick's Day is celebrated today--in fact, it was so much of a "party" holiday that religious authorities in the 17-19th centuries discouraged its observance. Though I am not certain, I would venture to guess that Christmas became a national holiday in the first place because of its very secular-ness: at the time, the holiday had precious little to do with religion.

[Flasch186]

im for more governement holidays...as many as I can get because it seems its the only way I get a vacation outside of my normal days off.

Although!!!! JUNE 5 - 10th Me and BF are going to Vegas....GF cant go because she just started her new job (at my company) and doesnt have any time to get off....but VEGAS BABY!!!! first vacation in 2 and a half years!@!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Ok. This I'm curious about. How can secular humanism be protected under the free exercise clause when it has no predictable set of beliefs. If I argue the meals in prison are inconsistent with a secular humanist diet, how would anyone be able to argue either way. If I argue that the use of marijuana is part of secular humanist rituals, is there a free exercise issue? If I say secular humanism is about gay rights (as Bubba seems to believe), does that mean anti-gay laws are a free exercise violation? I think the answers to all of the above questions is that there is no free exercise claim. What I've seen from Bubba's list of cases on the AOL website is that conscientious objectors don't have to be of a particular religion (and so they are assumed to be secular humanists), but I don't see that as the same as recognizing secular humanism as a religion across the board. Your case seems to be another anomoly where the court doesn't want to judge sincerity of belief. I just can't believe they would really extend this principle.

And if Bubba really wants to argue that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the law, beware of the thousands of free exercise lawsuits coming that will ensure gay marriage is protected, public sex acts are allowed, and affirmative action is always legal (just as it is within churches).

Well secular humanism gets the same free exercise rights of any other religion. It does not need to have a particular set of beliefs; a set of beliefs does not matter in free exercise concerns, as witnessed in Tarcaso, Frazee, and Thomas v. Indiana Employement Security Division (which was a case that said Thomas had a free exercise right to unemployment because the fact that he would not work on Saturday, even though other Jehovah's Witnesses would, was excusable as not being termination for cause - even though the community of Jehovah's Witnesses said it was ok, Thomas' particular beliefs are protected). There is no free exercise rights to use drugs, as the Peyote case (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith - which also set up the neutrality standard in free exercise) demonstrates. And just because a religion allows gay marriage (or advocates for gay rights) doesn't mean the state has to accept it, as we have seen with more liberal churches.

Anyway, the current basis for free exercise is the neutrality doctrine (well, there is some debate about whether Locke v. Davey changes anything, but we don't know yet). That means if it is neutral on its face and neutral in application, the law will stand, even if it has a minor infringement on religious belief. If the law is blatant discrimination then it may violate the free exercise clause (it has to go through compelling standard after that).

Free exercise doesn't always grant you an exception. In fact, nowadays, you probably won't get an exception to a generally applicable law.

If you went to court saying your church allows for gay marriage and you go to court to enforce it under free exercise, you'll be laughed out of court. Even under Sherbert test formulation (pre Smith), it wouldn't have flown. There are churches that do marry off homosexuals. It isn't like secular humanist would be the first to do it. Those marriages are not recognized under the state and the state is not required by the free exercise clause to do so. Public sex acts are part of the general criminal code and therefore a free exercise exception does not flow.

Also the Frazee case wasn't one where the Court didn't want to judge sincerity of belief. The petitioner asserted, quite readily, that he didn't belong to any religious community and his personal spirituality said that Sunday was a day of rest.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well secular humanism gets the same free exercise rights of any other religion. It does not need to have a particular set of beliefs; a set of beliefs does not matter in free exercise concerns, as witnessed in Tarcaso, Frazee, and Thomas v. Indiana Employement Security Division (which was a case that said Thomas had a free exercise right to unemployment because the fact that he would not work on Saturday, even though other Jehovah's Witnesses would, was excusable as not being termination for cause - even though the community of Jehovah's Witnesses said it was ok, Thomas' particular beliefs are protected). There is no free exercise rights to use drugs, as the Peyote case (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith - which also set up the neutrality standard in free exercise) demonstrates. And just because a religion allows gay marriage (or advocates for gay rights) doesn't mean the state has to accept it, as we have seen with more liberal churches.

Anyway, the current basis for free exercise is the neutrality doctrine (well, there is some debate about whether Locke v. Davey changes anything, but we don't know yet). That means if it is neutral on its face and neutral in application, the law will stand, even if it has a minor infringement on religious belief. If the law is blatant discrimination then it may violate the free exercise clause (it has to go through compelling standard after that).

Free exercise doesn't always grant you an exception. In fact, nowadays, you probably won't get an exception to a generally applicable law.

If you went to court saying your church allows for gay marriage and you go to court to enforce it under free exercise, you'll be laughed out of court. Even under Sherbert test formulation (pre [/Smith]), it wouldn't have flown. There are churches that do marry off homosexuals. It isn't like secular humanist would be the first to do it. Those marriages are not recognized under the state and the state is not required by the free exercise clause to do so. Public sex acts are part of the general criminal code and therefore a free exercise exception does not flow.

Also the Frazee wasn't one where the Court didn't want to judge sincerity of belief. The petitioner asserted, quite readily, that he didn't belong to any religious community and his personal spirituality said that Sunday was a day of rest.

I appreciate you taking the time. I wanted to push one point further. It still seems to me that rights for "secular humanists" (which still seems to be anyone not of a particular religion even though not everyone would identify with that label) only extend as far as they do for any religion. In other words, if you can point to a particular religion getting protection, you can opt-in to take advantage of their benefit. Secular humanists, however, have no protected practices of their own.

I expected you would use the peyote case for the drug example (and leaving aside whether that case is good law), but my argument still stands: what beliefs can secular humanists claim as their own?

You rightly point out that the neutrality principle controls (which is why religous organizations aren't all tax exempt) and I think that answers most of my questions. Still, I think it is a mistake to say secular humanism is considered a religion by the courts. Because it is only co-extensive (in terms of rights) with religions, it doesn't have any claims of its own. I guess your point about it not being a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause illustrates the point too. Do you know of any case (and I doubt there is one, but would be very interested if there was) that explains why secular humanism can be considered a religion for purposes of one clause and not the other?

I'm going to have to do some thinking about this because it has been several years since I studied religion cases. So many things disappear from your head after law school.

[st.cronin]

Etymological query; doesn't secular somehow imply non-religious? Isn't the argument that secular humanism is a religion ... somewhat bizarre?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Etymological query; doesn't secular somehow imply non-religious? Isn't the argument that secular humanism is a religion ... somewhat bizarre?

Well, this opens another can of worms but is worth addressing. I would say that this is the strained logic of the anti-faith based crowd in trying to have their agenda put forth by calling something a 'life-style' because no so-called 'higher power' is acknowledged and then turning around and censuring any faith-based response by labeling it as 'religion' based on a belief in a higher power. Pure semantics used to advance one philosophy over another.

This is why liberal teachers and administrators think that they can freely advance 'tolerance' of any and all 'progressive' agendas (because they are based on man) by calling them 'life-style choices' regardless of how hostile they may be to a particular set of faith-based beliefs, and then in turn censur any response along those lines because that is promoting 'religion.'

A faith-based person would argue that because man is designed in a certain way then he can only be fulfilled with a relationship with God. But if that relationship is missing then that same man will attempt to fill that void with his own set of rules, convictions, ect..., and even though these 'beliefs' may not include a higher power in name they would still embody all the same type of practices, commitments, ect..., as any other 'religion' claiming faith in a higher power.

So the bottom line is, regardless of whether or not you claim faith in a higher power or just in the nature of man, you will still practice some form of religion by default whether that be named 'religion' or 'lifestyle' (remember, religion is at its heart a 'lifestyle) or whatever.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I appreciate you taking the time. I wanted to push one point further. It still seems to me that rights for "secular humanists" (which still seems to be anyone not of a particular religion even though not everyone would identify with that label) only extend as far as they do for any religion. In other words, if you can point to a particular religion getting protection, you can opt-in to take advantage of their benefit. Secular humanists, however, have no protected practices of their own.

I expected you would use the peyote case for the drug example (and leaving aside whether that case is good law), but my argument still stands: what beliefs can secular humanists claim as their own?

You rightly point out that the neutrality principle controls (which is why religous organizations aren't all tax exempt) and I think that answers most of my questions. Still, I think it is a mistake to say secular humanism is considered a religion by the courts. Because it is only co-extensive (in terms of rights) with religions, it doesn't have any claims of its own. I guess your point about it not being a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause illustrates the point too. Do you know of any case (and I doubt there is one, but would be very interested if there was) that explains why secular humanism can be considered a religion for purposes of one clause and not the other?

I'm going to have to do some thinking about this because it has been several years since I studied religion cases. So many things disappear from your head after law school.

I think that you may still be thinking about people who get free exercise protection have to point to practices of the religion as a whole. However, as Frazee and Thomas (which I've alluded to above) make it clear that the free exercise clause is for the free exercise of the INDIVIDUAL, no matter if it is highly ideosyncratic. Maybe that helps in your understanding of where I'm going with this.

Therefore, there doesn't need to be pointing to a secular humanist 'religion' per se, but rather it is to the spiritual beliefs of the individual secular humanist. Thomas, for instance, involves a case where one Jehovah's Witness disagreed with the rest of his peers on when he could work. His individual free exercise right was protected.

So when I say that secular humanism is a religion for free exercise purposes (and I believe should be), what I'm saying is that the free exercise rights of individual secular humanists should be protected. For example, a secular humanist being forced to swear to God violates his free exercise rights (as well as establishment issues).

This is also why there is a difference in secular humanism in the free exercise and disestablishment arenas. In disestablishment, we have to look at the religious practices of a religion to make sure that the government isn't holding them up. In free exercise we look at what the individual claimant believes.

Of course, neutrality is the rule now, after Smith.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So the bottom line is, regardless of whether or not you claim faith in a higher power or just in the nature of man, you will still practice some form of religion by default whether that be named 'religion' or 'lifestyle' (remember, religion is at its heart a 'lifestyle) or whatever.

If you broadly define religion that way, as I do as well to an extent, then pretty much every way of life is a religion. The problem with that though is that the religious right will then use it as an excuse to call evolution a religious theory, which it clearly is not. There is something completely different between science and faith, for example evolution and ID. The former is based on scientific theory, the second is usually based on an argument of ignorance ("I don't understand how all of this could have happened from evolution, so therefore there must have been intelligent design"). Though secular humanists tend to accept evolution, it is not a cornerstone of their faith any more than the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you broadly define religion that way, as I do as well to an extent, then pretty much every way of life is a religion. The problem with that though is that the religious right will then use it as an excuse to call evolution a religious theory, which it clearly is not. There is something completely different between science and faith, for example evolution and ID. The former is based on scientific theory, the second is usually based on an argument of ignorance ("I don't understand how all of this could have happened from evolution, so therefore there must have been intelligent design"). Though secular humanists tend to accept evolution, it is not a cornerstone of their faith any more than the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Yes, but I would point out that much of evolution is based on a certain 'faith' as it cannot be emperically tested, and other evidence of it does not exist (no real evidence of species changing from one to another). So in that respect it does fit, and this is what the religious right points out.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, but I would point out that much of evolution is based on a certain 'faith' as it cannot be emperically tested, and other evidence of it does not exist (no real evidence of species changing from one to another). So in that respect it does fit, and this is what the religious right points out.

One, there is a huge amount of data supporting evolution. Two, conceptually, an experiment could be constructed to test evolution, and in fact, we inadvertently conduct these experiments all the time on micro-organisms. I assume you can understand that drug-resistant germs are an example of evolutionary changes in progress.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, but I would point out that much of evolution is based on a certain 'faith' as it cannot be emperically tested, and other evidence of it does not exist (no real evidence of species changing from one to another). So in that respect it does fit, and this is what the religious right points out.

Just to clarify, in no way does evolution state that species change from one to another. And I do believe plenty of evidence in favor of evolution exists, just maybe nothing in a lab where they turn an ape into a human, but i'm sure there are thousands of papers on medline.

[sabotai]

Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, this opens another can of worms but is worth addressing. I would say that this is the strained logic of the anti-faith based crowd in trying to have their agenda put forth by calling something a 'life-style' because no so-called 'higher power' is acknowledged and then turning around and censuring any faith-based response by labeling it as 'religion' based on a belief in a higher power. Pure semantics used to advance one philosophy over another.

This is why liberal teachers and administrators think that they can freely advance 'tolerance' of any and all 'progressive' agendas (because they are based on man) by calling them 'life-style choices' regardless of how hostile they may be to a particular set of faith-based beliefs, and then in turn censur any response along those lines because that is promoting 'religion.'

A faith-based person would argue that because man is designed in a certain way then he can only be fulfilled with a relationship with God. But if that relationship is missing then that same man will attempt to fill that void with his own set of rules, convictions, ect..., and even though these 'beliefs' may not include a higher power in name they would still embody all the same type of practices, commitments, ect..., as any other 'religion' claiming faith in a higher power.

So the bottom line is, regardless of whether or not you claim faith in a higher power or just in the nature of man, you will still practice some form of religion by default whether that be named 'religion' or 'lifestyle' (remember, religion is at its heart a 'lifestyle) or whatever.

The saddest thing about your worldview is that you either don't know, or disregard the fact that there are people who are both liberal and faithful to God. You totally wash this fact and basically believe that if we don't have the same views that you do we must be anti-faith liberal humanists. It's absurd and sad.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

One, there is a huge amount of data supporting evolution. Two, conceptually, an experiment could be constructed to test evolution, and in fact, we inadvertently conduct these experiments all the time on micro-organisms. I assume you can understand that drug-resistant germs are an example of evolutionary changes in progress.

Natural selection has been proven, but that's a long way from man evolving from lemurs.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

The saddest thing about your worldview is that you either don't know, or disregard the fact that there are people who are both liberal and faithful to God. You totally wash this fact and basically believe that if we don't have the same views that you do we must be anti-faith liberal humanists. It's absurd and sad.

Not really what I said, but the reason they are called Liberals/Progressives is because they (people calling themselves that) believe that truth in general is an evolving process that changes with society and the times. Whereas the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ (and His Holy Spirit) "Is the same yesterday, today and forever." God's truth does not change, even though styles and customs will (we no longer segregate church services by sex, for example.) These are form rather than substance, and the Bible makes allowances for this. But when your teaching/advancement of philosophy or whatever comes into direct contradiction with a Biblical truth you are just wrong.

Read the story of Jesus at the well with the woman Samaritan. Jesus was compassionate, understanding and forgiving. He knew that she had been living with a man not her husband, and had indeed been doing this with other men for some time now. As a Samaritin she told Jesus that their worship practices differed from His (being Jewish.) Didn't matter. Jesus told her that living that way was wrong, was sin, and that she should repent (change.) Pretty direct and self-explanitory, no 'new age' spin needed to understand it.
Just basic unchanging truth according to God, and if it wasn't important then why would Christ have bothered with it in the first place?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

...and if it wasn't important then why would Christ have bothered with it in the first place?

Interesting question. Why is it, in your view, that Christ did not bother with homosexuality?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Interesting question. Why is it, in your view, that Christ did not bother with homosexuality?

So what your saying in your own view, is that even though Christ would go out of his way to correct a woman living out of wedlock with a man, He would have no problem with two men living in a sexual situation even though 'gay marriage' has never been recognized in the world's history (except for maybe some obscure, isolated incidents somewheres)? If Christ did not sanction the one how do you see Him overlooking and sanctioning the other?

BTW, Christ existed in Israel under Jewish law. I believe that practicing homosexuality was an offense punishable by stoning, same as adultery. God did say "I would have mercy before judgement", explains Jesus' actions in forgiving the woman at the well and the adulterous woman about to be stoned He intervened in sparing. Jesus did not say either was right in what they did, just that mercy was more important than judgement. Why would He do differently with a homosexual under Jewish law?

[Blackadar]

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So what your saying in your own view, is that even though Christ would go out of his way to correct a woman living out of wedlock with a man, He would have no problem with two men living in a sexual situation even though 'gay marriage' has never been recognized in the world's history (except for maybe some obscure, isolated incidents somewheres)? If Christ did not sanction the one how do you see Him overlooking and sanctioning the other?

Murder was illegal in Isreal around 0 AD I'm pretty sure, and they made sure to spell out that that was not allowed in Christianity.

I was just wondering how you could argue on one hand that Jesus only talked about important stuff, yet the most important issue on the docket for the RR these days appears to be homosexuality. Believe whatever you want to believe about it, but the political situation reeks more of opportunism and scapegoating than actual morality. Maybe you don't think that gay marriage is a big issue though, since Jesus didn't talk about it, I don't want to speak for you or make you representative of the entire RR.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

But when your teaching/advancement of philosophy or whatever comes into direct contradiction with a Biblical truth you are just wrong.

I think that that in itself is where the ignorance comes from. It's the blinders that makes you judge. IT's your blinders that make it so you cannot see that not everything is black and white and that in a democracy there can be differing opinions that are both right. If the Bible makes you treat others better so be it, thats great. But I believe int he Torah and in that I believe it helps me treat others better. Mine is just as right as yours is, and so are those who believe in the Quran, or a different interpretation of the bible, etc. your closed minded view is were you go wrong, not your book.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

they (people calling themselves that) believe that truth in general is an evolving process that changes with society and the times. God's truth does not change, even though styles and customs will These are form rather than substance, and the Bible makes allowances for this.

You have been providing some good entertainment this week. I have been sharing this post with some former classmates and professors, most theology post graduates.

This quote is so far my favorite example of your anti-relative relativism rhetoric. The ironic thing is that you are showing the beauty of Christian Discourse. The fact that the discourse is paradoxical is the very reason it has been successful. No amount of language can adequately describe Jesus being fully man and God, or describe Christ being begotten. The only way we can approach these problems, and many others, is to put them into context, our context, of our time, and experiences. Once we do, we can say we have a personal relationship with the infinite (another paradox).

I think you might have some good points. However, as soon as you start name calling, your argument becomes something other than a declaration of your faith/beliefs. From what I can tell you are not a dualist, you do not need evil (for you liberals) to know good. The faith and spirituality I think you are trying to profess seems to me to be more of an unstoppable beacon of light, hope and (most important to me) JOY. And I don't see it, thus 5 days of venom, and amusement.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Not really what I said, but the reason they are called Liberals/Progressives is because they (people calling themselves that) believe that truth in general is an evolving process that changes with society and the times. Whereas the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ (and His Holy Spirit) "Is the same yesterday, today and forever." God's truth does not change, even though styles and customs will (we no longer segregate church services by sex, for example.) These are form rather than substance, and the Bible makes allowances for this. But when your teaching/advancement of philosophy or whatever comes into direct contradiction with a Biblical truth you are just wrong.

Read the story of Jesus at the well with the woman Samaritan. Jesus was compassionate, understanding and forgiving. He knew that she had been living with a man not her husband, and had indeed been doing this with other men for some time now. As a Samaritin she told Jesus that their worship practices differed from His (being Jewish.) Didn't matter. Jesus told her that living that way was wrong, was sin, and that she should repent (change.) Pretty direct and self-explanitory, no 'new age' spin needed to understand it.
Just basic unchanging truth according to God, and if it wasn't important then why would Christ have bothered with it in the first place?

Maybe your just interpreting the Bible wrongly to fit your worldview.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Natural selection has been proven, but that's a long way from man evolving from lemurs.

Go read the article sabotai linked to. Observational data exists of evolution happening.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

You have been providing some good entertainment this week. I have been sharing this post with some former classmates and professors, most theology post graduates.

This quote is so far my favorite example of your anti-relative relativism rhetoric. The ironic thing is that you are showing the beauty of Christian Discourse. The fact that the discourse is paradoxical is the very reason it has been successful. No amount of language can adequately describe Jesus being fully man and God, or describe Christ being begotten. The only way we can approach these problems, and many others, is to put them into context, our context, of our time, and experiences. Once we do, we can say we have a personal relationship with the infinite (another paradox).

I think you might have some good points. However, as soon as you start name calling, your argument becomes something other than a declaration of your faith/beliefs. From what I can tell you are not a dualist, you do not need evil (for you liberals) to know good. The faith and spirituality I think you are trying to profess seems to me to be more of an unstoppable beacon of light, hope and (most important to me) JOY. And I don't see it, thus 5 days of venom, and amusement.

Well, this one calls for some kind of response. Don't see how I've name-called in the least, just used common terms to describe positions (liberals, ect...) and stated pretty obvious points. When school administrators take it upon themselves to promote life-styles and practices to everyone in a classroom regardless of the faith and beliefs of those same kids parents, that is in iteself a hostile act and cannot be called anything else with a straight face. Sean Hannity talks about some school official/teacher/health care worker giving a 6-yr old kid a condom. If you see nothing hostile towards Christian beliefs and practices in that then good luck to you.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

Go read the article sabotai linked to. Observational data exists of evolution happening.

Yeah, I know, suddenly everyone is ga-ga over a supposed dinosaur with feather as this provides the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds. This argument is really no different than most others, folks just seeing what they want and discounting contradictory evidence.

[Flasch186]

If you want to have your kids taught specific things to Christian beliefs than send your kids to a private school. I guarantee that teacher got in trouble....use an extreme to prove a ridiculous point. It doesnt matter if somethingis hostile towards christianity, that is not the benchmark for public schools. Sorry Bubba, I say again, please keep your fucking religion out of my public school, where Jewish kids might go, where my tax dollars go....and I'll keep my religion out of it too. If you want to meet in a bar and chat about religion, so be it. Invite me to your church and try to convert me, ok. But keep your religion out of Public stuff.......but if you disagree, I guess you could always try to get a bunch of right wing judges attached to the courts to eventually have NO seperation of the Christian church and state (swallow that, sit back, think about it...isn't that what you really want anyways? a Christian Country. See thats where your shit is so fucked up....intolerance disguised as religion...for shame)

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yeah, I know, suddenly everyone is ga-ga over intelligent design. This argument is really no different than most others, folks just seeing what they want and discounting contradictory evidence.

yup I agree Bubba

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

If you want to have your kids taught specific things to Christian beliefs than send your kids to a private school. I guarantee that teacher got in trouble....use an extreme to prove a ridiculous point. It doesnt matter if somethingis hostile towards christianity, that is not the benchmark for public schools. Sorry Bubba, I say again, please keep your fucking religion out of my public school, where Jewish kids might go, where my tax dollars go....and I'll keep my religion out of it too. If you want to meet in a bar and chat about religion, so be it. Invite me to your church and try to convert me, ok. But keep your religion out of Public stuff.......but if you disagree, I guess you could always try to get a bunch of right wing judges attached to the courts to eventually have NO seperation of the Christian church and state (swallow that, sit back, think about it...isn't that what you really want anyways? a Christian Country. See thats where your shit is so fucked up....intolerance disguised as religion...for shame)

Well, just go back a few posts to the ones regarding Secular Humanism. All your doing if you want to replace a Judeo-Christian outlook in public schools with a Secular Humanist one is favoring one religion over another. Curse all you want, doesn't change the fact that you still wind up being guilty of the very things you accuse me of. Besides, most know I do advocate the breakup of the monolithic public school system into much smaller components that are more tailored to teaching things on an individual level. Even the great Satan (according to Microsoft haters) Bill Gates is advocating change when he states that our high schools of today are obsolete and inadequate.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yeah, I know, suddenly everyone is ga-ga over a supposed dinosaur with feather as this provides the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds. This argument is really no different than most others, folks just seeing what they want and discounting contradictory evidence.

You didn't read sabotai's link, did you? It has nothing to do with feathered dinosaurs. It gives examples of one species becoming another species in modern times. Meaning within the last century.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, just go back a few posts to the ones regarding Secular Humanism. All your doing if you want to replace a Judeo-Christian outlook in public schools with a Secular Humanist one is favoring one religion over another. Curse all you want, doesn't change the fact that you still wind up being guilty of the very things you accuse me of. Besides, most know I do advocate the breakup of the monolithic public school system into much smaller components that are more tailored to teaching things on an individual level. Even the great Satan (according to Microsoft haters) Bill Gates is advocating change when he states that our high schools of today are obsolete and inadequate.

Easier said then done.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, just go back a few posts to the ones regarding Secular Humanism. All your doing if you want to replace a Judeo-Christian outlook in public schools with a Secular Humanist one is favoring one religion over another.

You can not be serious. I mean, really. How is the outlook of secular humanism being implemented in the school? There is no "There is no God" class right after chemistry. What outlook is being implemented?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You can not be serious. I mean, really. How is the outlook of secular humanism being implemented in the school? There is no "There is no God" class right after chemistry. What outlook is being implemented?

exactly...no one says there is no god. They just say "do it on your own, on your personal time, between classes." Its that whole, "unless everyone agrees that Christianity is the light and admits it publicly, it must be an attack on our beliefs." So unless I walk down the street wearing a shirt that says Im a Jew I must be a secular humanist becuase im not having it come out of my pores. So ridiculous that people actually feel this way....

instead BW why not try jamming the bible directly down someone's throat...might get the same results.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

exactly...no one says there is no god. They just say "do it on your own, on your personal time, between classes." Its that whole, "unless everyone agrees that Christianity is the light and admits it publicly, it must be an attack on our beliefs." So unless I walk down the street wearing a shirt that says Im a Jew I must be a secular humanist becuase im not having it come out of my pores. So ridiculous that people actually feel this way....

instead BW why not try jamming the bible directly down someone's throat...might get the same results.

Personally, I think this statement is indicates the great paranoia that the secular crowd has of faith-based people in general. Nowheres have I ever said you have to live this way, do things this way. All I've ever said is that those of faith should be respected for what they believe and that includes in ALL subjects taught in public schools including health class, ect... But mention the Bible to some like yourself and immediately we get the whole 'Taliban coming, sky is falling, jamming Bibles down our throats' mantra that seems to unite secularists in general.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

exactly...no one says there is no god. They just say "do it on your own, on your personal time, between classes." Its that whole, "unless everyone agrees that Christianity is the light and admits it publicly, it must be an attack on our beliefs." So unless I walk down the street wearing a shirt that says Im a Jew I must be a secular humanist becuase im not having it come out of my pores. So ridiculous that people actually feel this way....

instead BW why not try jamming the bible directly down someone's throat...might get the same results.

Secular Humanism is not a neutral-based way of thought. By its very nature it promotes an attitude that undermines respect for faith and those who practice it by placing everything into the physical/intellectual arena with no room for the spiritual...talking of that in a general sense. Just allowing teachers the ability to include the words 'higher power' or 'God' in a very generic would go a long way to correct this, but of course that would be seen as promoting faith over secularism as opposed to the accepted way now of promoting secularism over faith. Fearing the very idea of a higher power or the thought of God in general is just paranoid.

The quote that I should have responded to was Mr.Bigglesworth one up regarding the 'outlook.' Don't feel like typing it over.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by clintl

You didn't read sabotai's link, did you? It has nothing to do with feathered dinosaurs. It gives examples of one species becoming another species in modern times. Meaning within the last century.

I am going to study this one very carefully, so don't expect a quick comment on it. Not convinced this isn't just more natural selection, maybe more advanced forms of it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Personally, I think this statement is indicates the great paranoia that the secular crowd has of faith-based people in general. Nowheres have I ever said you have to live this way, do things this way. All I've ever said is that those of faith should be respected for what they believe and that includes in ALL subjects taught in public schools including health class, ect... But mention the Bible to some like yourself and immediately we get the whole 'Taliban coming, sky is falling, jamming Bibles down our throats' mantra that seems to unite secularists in general.

so teach condom usage in health class? as well as abstinence?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Secular Humanism is not a neutral-based way of thought. By its very nature it promotes an attitude that undermines respect for faith and those who practice it by placing everything into the physical/intellectual arena with no room for the spiritual...talking of that in a general sense. Just allowing teachers the ability to include the words 'higher power' or 'God' in a very generic would go a long way to correct this, but of course that would be seen as promoting faith over secularism as opposed to the accepted way now of promoting secularism over faith. Fearing the very idea of a higher power or the thought of God in general is just paranoid.

The quote that I should have responded to was Mr.Bigglesworth one up regarding the 'outlook.' Don't feel like typing it over.

if you want faith taught it should be in a private school....faith is something the kid should bring to school NOT learn AT school. Perhaps be taught about religion but NOT taught a religion. Comprende? Send your kid to private school if you want his faith taught.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so teach condom usage in health class? as well as abstinence?

At what age in your world do the kids start putting condoms over bananas? My answer is no. That's like asking me if its ok for me to give your kid a Bible during school so he can learn about what the vast majority of his countrymen believe in. That ok with you?

I have no problem with kids of an appropriate age being taught clinical sex education. Using that to promote a 'how to have sex' agenda is not the same thing.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

if you want faith taught it should be in a private school....faith is something the kid should bring to school NOT learn AT school. Perhaps be taught about religion but NOT taught a religion. Comprende? Send your kid to private school if you want his faith taught.

And give me a tax voucher so I can send him to private school?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And give me a tax voucher so I can send him to private school?

Public school is not for YOU, its for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is NOT CHRISTIAN. I just cant belive you dont get that yet....its not about your religion in public school its about learning and learning is not about teaching whether or not GOD exists and who the fuck is right and wrong. Save it for sundays.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

At what age in your world do the kids start putting condoms over bananas? My answer is no. That's like asking me if its ok for me to give your kid a Bible during school so he can learn about what the vast majority of his countrymen believe in. That ok with you?

So you should decide what is taught but in the earlier post you said teach everything. So if it fits you fine, if not than it must not happen. INTOLERANCE!!! RIGHT the fuck, there. Your way, then you camouflage it as "teach everything" but when it doesnt you piss in a bucket and throw it. Thats BS, cant have it both ways buddies.....

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

At what age in your world do the kids start putting condoms over bananas? My answer is no. That's like asking me if its ok for me to give your kid a Bible during school so he can learn about what the vast majority of his countrymen believe in. That ok with you?

YUP ON SUNDAYS AT CHURCH!!!

Originally Posted by bw

I have no problem with kids of an appropriate age being taught clinical sex education. Using that to promote a 'how to have sex' agenda is not the same thing.

appropriate according to your religion right....thats just BS you want IT ALL dont you?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So you should decide what is taught but in the earlier post you said teach everything. So if it fits you fine, if not than it must not happen. INTOLERANCE!!! RIGHT the fuck, there. Your way, then you camouflage it as "teach everything" but when it doesnt you piss in a bucket and throw it. Thats BS, cant have it both ways buddies.....

What...I can't be Pro-life AND Pro-Choice? Thought we were making up new rules here.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

What...I can't be Pro-life AND Pro-Choice? Thought we were making up new rules here.

dont lump me in asshat - Pro choice is not equal to pro-death, like you want people to believe.

just stick to defending your own hypocrisy...you need to focus on that because you fail miserably.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

And give me a tax voucher so I can send him to private school?

I don't want my tax dollars going to teach your kid fairy tales. You can pay for that on your own if it is that important to you. I'm sure you wouldn't pay to send a kid to an Islamic school.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Personally, I think this statement is indicates the great paranoia that the secular crowd has of faith-based people in general. Nowheres have I ever said you have to live this way, do things this way.

The faith-based people are trying to get an amendment to the Constitution passed that says that some people can't live there life a certain way.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

if you want faith taught it should be in a private school....faith is something the kid should bring to school NOT learn AT school. Perhaps be taught about religion but NOT taught a religion. Comprende? Send your kid to private school if you want his faith taught.

I have a friend, an English teacher, who has an official reprimand for teaching the Bible in a world literature class. There was no prosletyzing, since the class was never actually taught; the reprimand was for the curriculum devised by the teacher. The teacher's union wouldn't touch the case.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have a friend, an English teacher, who has an official reprimand for teaching the Bible in a world literature class. There was no prosletyzing, since the class was never actually taught; the reprimand was for the curriculum devised by the teacher. The teacher's union wouldn't touch the case.

I have no doubt it's controversial, look at BW....Perhaps teach about the Bible in history class but NOT the bible itself, and probably not in English considering all of the spelling and grammar errors. It can be done, it was done in my school, and I enjoyed it quite a bit but that's cuz i love history. You faith-ees just have to be content to have your religion be your own ON YOUR OWN TIME, NOT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL....sunday mornings seem like a great time to talk about it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I have no doubt it's controversial, look at BW....Perhaps teach about the Bible in history class but NOT the bible itself, and probably not in English considering all of the spelling and grammar errors. It can be done, it was done in my school, and I enjoyed it quite a bit but that's cuz i love history. You faith-ees just have to be content to have your religion be your own ON YOUR OWN TIME, NOT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL....sunday mornings seem like a great time to talk about it.

The Bible is probably the most significant piece of literature in existence. It's not worth reading in a literature class? And 'spelling and grammar' errors? What the fark are you talking about???