Page 2 of 13

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 3:27 pm
by HoodedMan
These people, unfortunately, are taken seriously by many people.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:20 pm
by Maelstrom
Michael Savage (of "Savage Nation") has kind of a love-hate relationship with the Bay Area. He's constantly slinging right-wing flame of one kind or another, generating controversy that in turn generates sales for your average radio station. But, invariably, after a year or two, Mikey oversteps his boundaries and becomes a liability. He then gets fired and wanders around for a while until some other station decides they want some notoriety, and he's on the air again with much advertising and fanfare.

I have to wonder how many more stations he can do this to before he runs out of sponsors. Even KSFO, which plays Dr. Laura and Rush Limbau radio shows, won't touch Michael Savage anymore. That's really saying something.

Yes, it's sadly true; the extreme fundamentalists hold a disproportionate amount of power here. But one of the things about America that is easy to forget - something I didn't even figure out until I was in college - is that it was formed by extremists.

* Many of the original settlers of the 1600s were the ridiculously extreme Puritans, escaping religious persecution in England. (Puritans were sour, grim, unsmiling, severe people who lived in dire fear that someone out there might be enjoying themselves. They were so religiously strict that they restricted their vocabulary to only those words used in the King James Version of the Bible.)

* When things heated up in the late 1700s, it was the extremists like John Adams, Thomas Payne, and Paul Revere who agitated for separation. That's right: when compared with the bulk of society, even our most educated, progressive, and brilliant founding fathers were considered radical, left wing extremists. Maybe one third of the USA really wanted to separate from Britain. Another third wanted to stay with the mother country (the "Torries"). That left one third of the Colonies who didn't care, but wished desparately for the whole thing to settle down one way or another.

* The 1800s? American Civil War? Here come the extremists on both sides. The Deep South had "Patrollers", the forerunners to the infamous Ku Klux Klan, who went around "keeping them slaves in their place" by rape, murder, arson, and other forms of terrorism. The North (and even the South) had abolitionists, notably the wild John Brown, willfully breaking the law to bring slaves to freedom in the north. And let's be honest: sometimes the laws that got broken weren't just property ones. Murder happened on both sides.

* Under the guise of combatting social disintegration, fanatics campaigned for (and unfortunately recieved) the outlawing of all alcohol in the 1920s: Prohibition. This effectively made every citizen in the USA a felon at one time or another, so the law had little popular support. It also lead to the great wealth and power of the Mafia, who immediately took up booze running. By the time Prohibition was finally repealed, the damage had been done, and the Mafia was firmly entrenched in American society. (The real problem was that husbands were drinking up the family budget and abusing their wives and children, but to *really* solve the problem meant giving us ladies more rights, and it was just easier to treat a symptom than cure the disease. ;) )

Monitor and respect the power of fanatics: they have always found a way to dictate policy.

This probably isn't much help to someone on the recieving end of what looks very much like new American Imperialism. I believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was a reaction to a verified, agressive threat; the Taliban knowingly sheltered, funded, and aided a man who launched a vicious attack on US soil. But Iraq wasn't expanding, hadn't touched any of our allies (let alone us) since 1992, and was a well-contained dictatorship. Hell, we made peace with dictators like Pinochet, Baby Doc, the entire Saudi family, the Marcos family, and even CHINA. We ignore horrendous human rights situations like those in the Sudan and Ruwanda. Yet we come down on Saddam like a ton of bricks?

Here's where understanding some of America's extremist past comes in handy. We have a borderline extremist President, mainly elected by evangelical Christians (fundamentalists, or as I like to call them, "fundies".) President Bush is himself a fundie: he is a Born Again Christian, a sect of evangelical Christianity well-known for its militancy and fervor. And one thing about fundies is that they KNOW that the Rapture (a tortured misreading of Revelations) is going to happen, and they want to bring it about sooner so they-- the pure, the martyrs, the faithful alone-- can go straight up to Heaven. And one of the signs of the up and coming fulfillment of the Rapture is that a war with Israel will start, where pretty much everyone in the world beats up on the descendents of the House of David. Once that war starts, Jesus can't be far behind.

Does our whacked-out Middle-Eastern policy make a little more chilling sense now? :urg

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:13 pm
by eroz
Very interesting points Maelstorm. I am afraid you are right. Extremists usually have more influence, because they are more fanatical about their goals and they are ready to do anything to accomplish them.
Still, I find really strange the fact that people’s religious views will influence their political beliefs and the way they vote.
And I don’t understand how any Church can have significant political power in your country. Especially, since, there are so many different religions and denominations in the US. You have Catholics and Methodists and Protestants and Muslims and Wicca etc.
In Greece 90% of the population is Orthodox Christian, and still the Church doesn’t have that kind of influence on the people. Every now and then Christodoulos (the idiot who is head of the Greek Church) speaks up about a political issue, but just about everybody’s reaction is “shut up, and stay out of things that don’t concern you”. The Church has influence of course, because it has a lot of money to spend on politicians, but they don’t really influence the people’s political views.
So how can that happen in the US that is a lot less homogenous?

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 7:13 pm
by HoodedMan
We have different Christian denominations, but they're occasionally willing to put aside their differences and the rocks in their hand in order to achieve common goals (namely: invading America's privacy).

Muslims and Wicca, etc., are either not as prevalent as Christians or not as outspoken concerning their group's issues. Also, Muslims for one agree with Christians on most political points.

I had a good point on why our heterogeneous nature makes up more apt to accept the Church's view, but I lost it. Hopefully it will come back to me.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:02 pm
by Maelstrom
[quote]Originally posted by eroz
In Greece 90% of the population is Orthodox Christian, and still the Church doesn’t have that kind of influence on the people.
So how can that happen in the US that is a lot less homogenous? [/quote]

I have the nasty feeling that the reason the fundies go after so much political power is because we are a diverse society. Everywhere they look in our culture, they see someone who isn't them. The time was, in the 50s and before, America was protrayed as pretty damn homogonous . Supreme court justices were passed without a second thought. Movies all featured caucasians in starring roles. No one even talked about someone who was gay; it just wasn't discussed. The "other people", minorities, non-protestants, and so on, existed of course, but they were safely "out of sight, out of mind". You could go to the store, go to work, go to a movie, turn on the TV, and never see someone who wasn't just like you.

But now, when you look around, things aren't so "safe and same" anymore. African Americans, Asians, and Latinos are on our movie screens. Women are in the workforce and on the news. We have gay politicians, actors, and even teachers. Everywhere you look, non-white, non-protestant people are here, they're not easy to ignore, and they're different, gosh-darn it! We're under attack! Our way of life is at stake! We're loosing our cultural identity!

The battle cry of the White Supremist is "protection of the White race". Why? Because he feels that "his turf" is being invaded by someone who he doesn't immediately understand and identify with. I think that it must be so with this religious right. The fundies see themselves as "under attack". They see all their precious values being eroded at the top level:

* No longer can we have prayers in school. (The reason? Compulsory Christian prayer had become a way to single out, intimidate, and even punish non-Christian students.)

* We have to teach evolution as a legitimate science. (Yes, these people honestly and ferverently believe that God made the world only 10,000 years ago, despite mountains of evidence.)

* Other faiths, even wicca, have the same protection as Christianity. (This has fundies frothing at the mouth, as obviously any other faith is just devil worship....)

* We allow abortion. (This is such a hot topic I'm not even going to expand on it.... :urg)

* We don't allow discrimination of gays, nor does the government treat homosexuality as a shameful disease that can be "cured" by faith or will.

Fear, real or invented, is a great motivator. If the government is going to destroy their cherished way of life, then they'll use the government to protect it! The religious right is now a well-organized machine, slick and well-spoken. They're clever enough to couch an end product of hatred in terms of morality, defense, and decency. Try to talk them out of it, and they just wave their Bible at you. Can't argue with that, now, can you? (Actually, I argue with their interpretation of it all the time, but I digress....)

In America, it seems that reasoning isn't working well anymore: it's become a shouting match on both sides. The last time we experienced this much polarization was during the Vietnam War of the late 60s. It seems that moderates on both sides are being systematically drowned out.

RIght now, I'm just holding on for the ride, and voting every chance I get. If I don't vote, I don't feel I have the right to complain about how things are going. And I treasure my complaining rights. ;)

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:18 pm
by HoodedMan
Oh my God, Maelstrom made my exact point, though she stated it a whole lot better than I ever would have. Cookie to her. Cheers!

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:40 am
by Bamfette
speaking of Christians fearful that their way of life is in danger (yeah, right...) ... nister.cfm

they even have the sermon available to listen to! it's almost as funny as it is scary....

“Sisters making more money than brothers and it’s creating problems in families … that’s one of the reasons many of our women are becoming lesbians,”

........ sure it is.... :rolleyes

and as a fun followup article: ... r0812.html

*gasp* well this means the good reverent told a BOLD FACED LIE to try and promote his homophobic views... about his own son, no less...

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:13 am
by Bamfette
.... why are people dumb and/or willfully ignorant?

I lurk at the Internet Infidels forums sometimes, usually the evolution section, as it interests me. I don't post, as there are several people who are actual evolutionary scientists with a whole slew of letters following their names, have been published in prestigous peer reviewed journals, and all that, that can always answer questions far better than I ever could, and I ususally get to a thread too late to comment (i would have commented on the Devon Rex confusion, that being one thing I do know a lot about, and it's actually even far more interesting than the originally poster let on in evolutionary terms.... (the mutation had already been selected for NATURALLY in feral cats before humans stepped in. Kirlee, the breed proginator, was not actually the first cat to carry this mutation) but by the time i found the thread, it was already 14 pages long.) but i find it to be an interesting read. anyway.... it is a community made up primarily of atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, the like. but they encourage the religious to come and discuss things there. they like themselves a good debate.

anyway. a couple theists, one fundamentalist Christian, (and a none too bright one) and someone who has kinda ambiguous theistic beliefs, just.... don't get it.

they've patiently had things explained to them over and over and over in very simple terms, but they manage to completely distort it and just not understand. the regulars were not trying to (de)convert them, or anything, but if you're going to try and debunk evolution, you should atleast understand what it is you're trying to disprove.

Like.... at one point they tried to restate what the various people had been tryign to pound through their heads about what evolution is and is not, and THIS is what came back:
So basically here's what I've come across:

1. We share a common ancestor, bacteria.
2. Whoever survives has traits that stay in the gene pool.
3. But the traits change over time, because we become different species over time, thus it doesn't really matter about survival, but on mutations that pass on.
4. The belief of whoever is the fastest, fittest, strongest survive. But this is inhibited by our need to cooperate and have a conscience.
5. Spontaneous generation has been proven false, but some say otherwise...

and MORE!

Okay... makes sense. ROFL

:shakeno they start off ok.... but when they get to point 3..... no. just no. that's not what people had been telling them for 10 pages prior to this comment AT ALL.

The theory of evolution is not something that's hard to understand. it's really very simple at its core, you don't have to understand every example to understand the basics of how it works, nor does it disprove religion, just young-earth creationism, so I just can't understand how these people, after 16 pages of discussion, can't get it. I can better understand someone who knows what the theory is, REALLY knows, and then says, 'I know how exactly what you all are trying to say (and they mean it), but i still don't believe it.' I would disagree with that, but that's their right to believe what they want. but to willfully ignore that you've just plain got the facts dead wrong.... it's like plugging your ears and shouting 'la la la la... i can't hear you!' and it just confuses me.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:41 am
by Angelique
Actually, there aren't just two categories. I myself do not agree with "points" number 1 and 3. It's not that I don't 'get' it, it's simply that it doesn't square with what I know of biology. (And that's actually one science I can understand better than my husband, the professor.) Yes, evolution occurs within a species. But a cat's still a cat. We can test and observe that. But we cannot test and observe the hypothesis that one species, with an added mutation, becomes a completely different plant, animal, or protist.
And actually, even the most Biblically literal young-earth creationists do not believe in spontaneous generation. (And here's where I get philosophical.) It's just that in order to remain consistent with this scientific fact, each camp has to regress to infinity. One has to claim that life, physical life, always existed in some form that could spontaneously give rise to a different life form. The other claims an infinitely living deity created it all.
And there are people like me who neither agree with young-earth creationism, nor the "theory" of evolution as it currently stands. But I tend to usually stay far from these debates, as I tend to get trashed by both sides. (I don't appreciate one side calling me stupid and the other calling me a heretic, or whatever.)

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:57 am
by Bamfette
I said it started to fall apart at point 3. 1 and 2 are perfectly correct (though bacteria isn't the earliest form of what could be considered life, and point 2, survival isn't ALL that's necessary, reproduction is as well, but it serves for this purpose and is generally correct)

3 is wrong because they said suvival "doesn't matter". if you don't survive, you don't reproduce, so your genes don't get passed on, so you don't contribute to the evolution of your species.

and we can observe species becoming other species. there are several ways to do this. my favorite is 'ring species'.

Basically, imagine a species of animal, and they spread to an adjacent territory, and they adapt to be slightly different than the neighboring population, but can still breed with them. they expand into another adjacent territory, and another, and another, until it all comes full circle, and they meet up again with the parent species. they can no longer breed with them, however, though they can breed with their other neighboring popularion, which can breed backwards through the chain with the parent species.

a real life demonstation of speciation. examples include green warblers in Russia, salamanders in the western United States, and... the common Seagull, whose 'ring' is the North Pole.

a single mutation can not generate a brand new species. this is where creationsists get confused. it takes many more generations and a lot more time to get to that point. but it can start a population within a species down a new road.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:14 am
by Saint Kurt
Why I find even harder to understand is why people draw lines in the sand with this issue so that belief in one thing negates the belief in another. By this I mean:

- Belief in Darwin's Theory of evolution means you can't believe in God
- Lending creedence to the possible relavancy of Intelligent Design means that next you'll be suggesting that the Bible be a required textbook in science class.
And so on...

It's ridiculous.

It seems that everyone forgets that these are all theories. Even God is a "theory" when placed in this context.

The Orgin of the Species is a Theory. Charles Darwin said so and over the many many years since he first proposed it, science has tested that theory and on the whole found it very solid. But remember, "gravity" is a theory too. It is Issac Newton's theory on why our feet stay on the ground, why the moon keeps orbiting the earth, etc. It may feel very solid as an idea, but every physicist will remind you, it's still just a theory.

The Bible is not a theory. The Bible claims to be the uncontested truth about what God and the followers of God did during specific times in the Earth's (and the universe's) history. The Bible can't be tested or hypothesized against.

Now Intelligent Design, if you leave the concept of "designer" free from any particular theistic association, is just another theory. It is a theory that says "I believe that Darwin's Origin of the Species is incomplete in light of the following evidence".

Just like science has hypothesized upon and tested the Origin of the Species so many times, why is it so wrong to give Intelligent Design that same treatment? And given that the Bible is not a theory, nor does it claim to be a scientific document - attempts made to use it to prove or disprove any scientific theory are just plain silly.

Theories are things you either believe or don't believe based on experience/testing/evidence. That's all.

So believe in the Origin of the Species.
Believe in Intelligent Design.
Believe in Gravity
Believe in the "Theory of" God.
But not one for a second should one believe that any one of these are 100% correct or incorrect.

Theories by their very nature force us to ask questions and to continually strive to refine their boundaries. They are not answers nor are they proof of anything.


Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:30 am
by Bamfette
well, as for point 2... one reason they say that, is because the Discovery Institute had their 5 and 20 year plan leaked, and that is precicely what they wanted to do. The IDers said it themselves. well. not a bible as a textbook, but they want to make society a more religious one, and are using ID as a wedge issue. ... wedge.html

as you can see, they are on schedule for their plan, ok, a year or two later than they hoped, but they're still plugging away, and we are now in Phase 3, 'Cultural Confrontation and Renewal'
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
in their 20 year plan, further down the road from this point, they say their goals are:
Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
which is why many people who believe in Evolution fight the IDers SO hard. for people like me, what's stated above is a downright appalling prospect, escpecialy when you take into all their talk of the so called social ills that 'materialism' has caused. they see it as an aggressive attempt to take over the sciences, not merley propose a new theory. proposing a new theory does NOT include going to court to *force* students to learn about it BEFORE it has even been tested. introducing a new theory includes investigating it and publishing your findings. if people agree with it, if it makes sense, if it explains things sufficiently, it will gain prominence on its own that way. but it needs to be proven, tested. which ID hasn't been. 'it's real complex, so there must be a designer' isn't enough. I personally don't believe the Discovery institute's little plan will be successful in the long run... they got through the first couple stages of thier plan without a hitch, because they've been preaching to the choir, but it will be much more difficult from here on in (though, not as difficult as i would have predicted 5 years ago, apprently, looking at the current court cases) but it would be much easier for them if no one argued for science.

and from what I can see, ID really is just creationism in a cheap tux. the textbook they've gotten teachers to direct students to, Of Pandas and People, in previous editions it did not call it Intelligent Design, it called it Creationism. recent editions have merely replaced the word Creationism with Intelligent Design, and and God with 'creator' or 'designer' and left everything else the same. and the proponents of ID have nearly all had some connection with literal biblical creationism movements in the past.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:25 am
by LadyErin
That...that just scares me....

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:36 am
by Angelique
Well, and some of what bothers me is what many biologists classify as entirely separate species. (Canis lupus and canis familiaris, for instance, should not qualify as separate species. I've seen puppies that were a quarter wolf.)

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:45 pm
by HoodedMan
At the risk of getting myself flamed and another religion thread re-ignited...

I also don't seem to understand why people can't believe that "intelligent design" and evolution can't go together. I personally don't believe in it, but I have religious friends who believe that God designed evolution and free will, so intertwined, to allow the different species to take it and run.

Sure, the Earth was created in seven days, but that's a translation. In the time of God, were there such things as days, especially before he created the sun and moon? Women was taken from man's rib, but could that be metaphorical, like so many other passages of the Bible seem to be?

Like I said, I don't personally believe in that combination theory but it seems to make sense, if you accept the stipulations. Why can't they both be true?

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:11 pm
by Maelstrom
I think one of my problems with Intelligent Design theory isn't so much the idea of a creator behind it all as it is...

1) What group is bringing this up.
2) The political, religious, and social history of this group.
3) ... Which leads to precisely which God must be the one pulling the cosmic strings.

The basic theory of Intelligent Design is acceptable to ME because I'm Christian, and my religious beliefs aren't being specifically compromised. Privately, if I'm talking Bible theory with friends, or speaking to some receptive children, my personal view on the matter would be pretty close. I like to think that while God did create everything, God is also no dummy, and that if a carpenter can create and employ tools like plumb lines and levels, God would create and employ rules like physics and natural selection. I imagine that a Jew may not disagree too strenuously with this view either, because it wouldn't directly contradict his or her religious views.

But what about someone who isn't from those two groups? What about a Moslem, whose views may encompass some of Christianity's precepts, but certainly not all? How about a Bhuddist, who doesn't necessarily believe in a single controlling entity? A Hindu? Jain? Wiccan? Animist? Aethiest?

While the scientific side of Intelligent Design is fine, the religious aspect is only going to safely apply to those whose faith is based off of Judaism (in one form or another). I just don't like the idea of something like that being taught in what should be a secular, public place of learning. Not everyone who pays taxes is Christian or Jewish. The beauty of Evolutionary Theory is that you can take the facts and tack on whatever "faith framework" feels the best to you. Intelligent Design strips that personal framework away and substitutes its own.

And as to what group is behind this media blitz....

If it was a group of concerned scientists, with no axe to grind, who honestly wanted a different take on a familiar theory, I'd be much more willing to give this some leeway (at least to the point of debate). But it isn't: it's being generated, even propagated, by the same Religious Right who swore they'd bring everything in America under their umbrella and turn it back into "God's Country". That's got me skittery right there.

That's why educators are standing up to fight this, and why this has become a "tooth and nail" struggle everywhere else. It's not just "Intelligent Design" on display: it's the ability of the Religious Right to slowly erode church and state boundaries. It's something relatively innocuous that could set legal precedents down the road, a cornerstone. Special Interest groups do this all the time.

* The ACLU fights anything that could be eventually used as a precedent to erode civil rights.
* The Sierra Club fights anything that could be eventually used as a precedent to erode environmental protection.
* The NRA fights against any gun control legistlation that could be eventually used as a precedent to erode gun ownership rights.
* Right-to-Life organizations fight anything that could be eventually used as a precedent to "promote abortion" or erode "children's" (feotal) rights.

It doesn't matter how wrong their stances may look for that one instance: the case is important not on its own, but for its precedent.

A few years ago, some cagey lady tried to fight against a carpool violation by stating that since she was pregnant, she counted as two people. Everyone and their brother got in on this court case (notably N.O.W. and Operation Rescue), not because of some slippery broad trying to weasel her way out of a $270 ticket, but because of all the precedents it could set. The legal implications were staggering to say the least.

To date I'm not sure how this "carpool case" turned out, because it fell off the public radar, and I haven't bothered to dig it up, but I have the feeling it may go all the way to the Supreme Court. Get ready for a similar battle here. And since its implications apply nationwide to every child that goes to school, with bigger, more organized groups on each side, it's going to get bigger and nastier as time goes on. People can get pretty wild when they feel they're defending their children....:\

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:51 pm
by Angelique
Well, the logical solution to the "carpool issue" (and this coming from someone who does believe a human fetus is indeed a human person), if the two people cannot help but fit in the same seat, they can't use the carpool lane.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:05 pm
by Maelstrom
It's logical... but not "legal". ;) Essentially, the pre-existing law defines a carpool as more than one PERSON in a vehicle. Pets don't count, as they're not legally defined as people (despite animal rights activists everywhere). But if you've got a baby who can sit in the same seat as you, and declare that if two can fit in the same seat it doesn't count for carpool purposes, then one of those two would thereby be legally defined as "not a PERSON." To my knowledge, in California at least, you are allowed to have a baby in the car and you count as a carpool. Babies are legally defined as "people".

But what if you've got a foetus instead? Well, by saying this lady can't act as "two people", you've inadverdently declared the foetus as "not a PERSON", which has right-to-life advocates up in arms, because it strips the unborn of their status as humans worthy of legal protection. Declare it as a person, and abortion right advocates are up in arms, because you've legally defined abortion as murder. Both scenarios are utterly illogical final conclusions that each side wants to avoid. Just the way the LAW works.

It's crazy, the way legal language gets twisted, construed, misconstrued, warped, and outright perverted.

All from some lady who just wanted to avoid a $270 fine. Can you say "Pandora's box"?

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:34 pm
by Angelique
I'd say the mother in question was carrying a person, yes, but not, strictly speaking, a passenger. Perhaps carpool laws should declare that the car must have at least one person riding- in the passenger seats. That way, nobody's definition of personhood is threatened, and nobody will try to use a fetus' personhood to weasel out of a fine.
By the way, rereading Uncanny 419 brought again to my mind the fact that the Catholic Church actually has no doctrine against the theories and educated hypotheses of evolution- just against leaping to the conclusion that evolution disproves the existence, authority, or benevolence of God. (I think 419 was written, in fact, well after the late Pope John Paul II issued a statement saying as much, too, which brings to mind a familiar gripe I often have about how my religion is represented as being full of young-earth creationists.)

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:12 am
by Bamfette
Originally posted by HoodedMan

Like I said, I don't personally believe in that combination theory but it seems to make sense, if you accept the stipulations. Why can't they both be true?
I don't have any problem with this at all... like you, I don't believe it, but it still fits with what we can observe around us. it doesn't require you to ignore evidence, and make up things to fit your view of how things came to be. what confuses me is... well, I knew this girl in high school and later college, and I had known her for years, when one day in college, she started in on how the dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan.... and i'm like, ok.... she was a perfectly intelligent and rational person in other regards, so this came out of left field. but she had to, in her mind, find a way to make both the 7 24 hour day creation 6000(ish) years ago and the fact that there are fossils somehow mesh, and that was her solution. when it makes more sense to me to give up the fact that Genesis was literally 7 days, and accept that dinosaurs once lived.

and as mentioned above, the Roman Catholic Church officially goes with the 'evolution guided by God' idea, and you know, the world hasn't come crumbling down....

it's not that we think Christianity is overrun with loud, obnoxious evangelical Christians, it's jsut that they are typically the ones non-Christians (or even liberal Christians) have to fight to protect our rights, so they get more media attention.... which i am sure they love, too.

of course, Creationists these days are 'taking back' the dinosaurs, even creating museums promoting this view (which tey have the right to do, and all, but... from my perspective it looks pretty nutty) and saying they were n the Ark, and the fossils were created in the flood, and etc. which, frankly is equally baffling to me as 'satan planted the fossils' because it requires some SERIOUS bending of the facts to make it fit.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:14 am
by Angelique
Actually, what my husband enjoys about this is that some young-earth creationists have lately embraced cryptozoology to help further their beliefs that dinosaurs existed far more recently than most believe.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:36 am
by Garble
I also don't seem to understand why people can't believe that "intelligent design" and evolution can't go together.

I actually think the concept behind intelligent design is interesting, but I don't think it should be taught in science class because there's no way to measure or test it. It's a philisophical question, unlike evolution.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:59 am
by LadyErin
Originally posted by Garble

I actually think the concept behind intelligent design is interesting, but I don't think it should be taught in science class because there's no way to measure or test it. It's a philisophical question, unlike evolution.
Thank you. It's a philisophical point that primarily fits best in one religion and it's off-shoots. Therefore-has no place in a science class.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:08 pm
by Bamfette
which is exactly what the other side is saying, but they are often represented as being intolerant or whatever for not supporting it being taught in sciene class. I merely don't support it being taught because it's not SCIENCE. if it was being taught in a philosophy class or an elective religion class, I'd be fine with it. but the IDers are gettin their asses whooped in Dover anyway, so i don't think we have much to worry about this time ;)

which brings me to.... i foun an interesting link. it's another one of the 'let me show you what it looks like through my eyes' links.... specifically, atheist. now, while for the most part i feel it hits the nail square on the head, i jsut want to say i don't share the authors asessment of the religious majority as 'functionally insane' but other than that....

now. i haven't ahd to deal with anything as severe as some of his examples in a personal family level, simply because i grew up in an atheist family, my grandmother and grandfather on my fathers side were/are atheist/agnostic, so my father was as well, and while my mother grew up Catholic, she stopped going to church before i was born, and never preached. though my maternal grandparents did, but they lived in another province, so we saw them rarely. but when we visited i do remember the big wood and metal heavy duty crucifixes adorning the wall of EVERY room in their house, and we were taken to church if we were there. but it wasn't too bad becuause it wasn't frequent. but i do know other people who have had to put up with stuff as bad or worse as described in the article... and from strangers, i am often treated with pity, confusion, shock, if they find out, which gets very annoying, and you tend to try to keep it private (online is different).

it's like. you all saw the scary Godd Warriah Trading Spouses? you know how hippie mom was very afraid to say too much about her beliefs? thats why. and i think it was illustrated prtty well why you feel very afraid to say anything if you don't conform when she met with the church ladies.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:20 pm
by HoodedMan
Well, evolution theory does have some serious holes in it; at best, it's an incomplete theory. I don't object to teaching kids that it's incomplete; I object when this is made to mean intelligent design must be true. It's a logical fallacy. At least evolution is mostly supported by empirical evidence.

Holes in one theory are not proof of another, and I wish that intelligent design advocates would learn that and start patching up the huge, gaping holes in their own theory.