Sarah Palin on evolution
TomS
reference to her views on evolution:
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
Memoir Is Palin�s Payback to McCain Campaign
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
Published: November 14, 2009
Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
�didn�t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
of the sea� or from �monkeys who eventually swung down from the
trees.�
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=books>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Ron O
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.”
>
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
masses.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<74b2adc0-f433-4fbb...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."
>
>On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
>> reference to her views on evolution:
>>
>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>> Published: November 14, 2009
>>
>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>> trees.=94
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=3D1&pagewanted=3D=
>2...>
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is=
> due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
>Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
>masses.
>
>Ron Okimoto
>
It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for
creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
Not in any of the "official" reasons.
IAAH
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.”
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=books>
>
>
South Park, anyone?
"So there ya go. You're the retarded offspring of
five monkeys havin' buttsex with a fish squirrel.
Congratulations."
-- Mr. Garrison.
Satire just can't beat real life, can it?
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
>reference to her views on evolution:
>
>BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>Memoir Is Palin? Payback to McCain Campaign
>By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>Published: November 14, 2009
>
>Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>?idn? believe in the theory that human beings ?thinking, loving
>beings ?originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>of the sea?or from ?onkeys who eventually swung down from the
>trees.?
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=books>
And there was a possibility she could have been the US President...
Doesn't really sound right does it?
--
Bob.
Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
--
Bob.
Andre Lieven
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.”
>
Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this
topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or
a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to
understand ?
Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/13/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Book-Fact-Check.html
FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 13, 2009
Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the
deeply
religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
Andre
Desertphile
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.”
I don't believe that either; no scientist does. Wow, Idiot Palin
got something right!
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=books>
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Earle Jones
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin�s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> �didn�t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
> beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea� or from �monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.�
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=boo
> ks>
*
I sent the following letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle
(and they published it!):
SARAH WHO?
"Forget Sarah Palin. She's been bagged, tagged, and released
back into the wild."
earle
*
Robert Camp
A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising
considering the source.
RLC
Free Lunch
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Since when is making an observation about someone's behavior bigoted?
Robert Camp
When it unfairly and irresponsibly tars an entire group with
accusations appropriately reserved for the behavior of an individual.
The phrase "the primary morality of the deeply religious" is clearly
not an observation about *someone's* behavior.
RLC
J. J. Lodder
> And there was a possibility she could have been the US
> President...
>
> Doesn't really sound right does it?
Hardly worse than George W.,
or the immortal Dan Quayle,
Jan
Ian Harvey
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:268314304.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin's Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=books>
>
To Sumarise, "Sarah Palin Dumb"
In further news "Bears Catholic" "Pope Shits in Woods"
Ian
fnord
Andre Lieven
futilely:
> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> >> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> >> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> >> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> >> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> >> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> >> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> >> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> >> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> >> trees.”
>
> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=
> > 2...>
>
> > Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this
> > topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or
> > a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to
> > understand ?
>
> > Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
>
> > t-Check.html
>
> > FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > Published: November 13, 2009
>
> > Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the
> > deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
>
> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising
> considering the source.
"Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
Next.
And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based
on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
Andre
Robert Camp
> On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> flailed
> futilely:
>> On 2009-11-15 13:37:41 -0800, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>>> 2...>
>>
>>> Qhy would anyone sane presume that she would be less wrong on this
>>> topic, as she is about The Bush Doctrine, what a VP actually does, or
>>> a host of other matters that she is far too willfully stoopid to
>>> understand ?
>>
>>> Plus, she and/or her ghostwriter, are big fat liars:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/13/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Bo...
>>> t-Check.html
>>
>>> FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts
>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>> Published: November 13, 2009
>>
>>> Sarah Pallid contimues to display that the primary morality of the
>>> deeply religious is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR.
>>
>> A ridiculously stupid and bigoted comment. And entirely unsurprising
>> considering the source.
>
> "Ad Hominem ALONE, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
>
> Thank you for so clearly having outed yourself as such.
>
> Next.
>
> And, the AP fact check PROVES that Pallid IS a big fat liar. Based
> on those pesky things known as verifyable FACTS.
It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Palin is a liar.
She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
group of people (the religious).
It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
ridiculously unparsimonious).
RLC
Andre Lieven
To say the least...
> But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> group of people (the religious).
No, I am accurately describing the actual, observed, morality of
that mass of people. I do not claim that ALL deeply religious people
are that way, just that a majority show that they are.
And, among my proofs for my statement are that the deeply
religious were and are the supporters of Lying Pallid, that deeply
religious people are the great majority of creationists, if not the
whole of that fould and LYING while willfully stupid group, and so
on.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits," Matthew 7:16.
> It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> ridiculously unparsimonious).
No evidence offered ? Factless whiny bullshit claim always fails.
Andre
VoiceOfReason
I think that's been well demonstrated to date.
> She's certainly of demonstrably limited intellectual capacity.
I think in this particular case she may just be ignorant. I think
many creationists follow very simplistic logic: Christianity is good;
putting it into our schools would be good; anybody who opposes that is
bad. Thus:
- Liberals are bad.
- The ACLU is bad.
- Science is bad.
In the black-and-white lunatic fringe mindset, I doubt that anything
matters except the party line. I doubt she could even conceptualize
the ramifications to science education in this country.
> But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> group of people (the religious).
>
> It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> ridiculously unparsimonious).
Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support
for science education.
Andre Lieven
Indeed, and for the most part, in the US, this is the baseline "deeply
religious" position.
> > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> > group of people (the religious).
>
> > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> > ridiculously unparsimonious).
>
> Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support
> for science education.
Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't
speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some
PR work ?
Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being
above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that
places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see
that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better
for us all. Sure.
Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully
be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T
proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume
that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass,
then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people
saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"? By the
count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast
a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid
voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that
they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate
religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a
tenable position.
Until then, it isn't. QED.
Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
denominations ?".
Andre
John Bode
> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> trees.”
>
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
VoiceOfReason
You're over-generalizing. Deeply religious Jews, Catholics,
Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc., don't support Biblical
creationism.
> > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> > > group of people (the religious).
> >
> > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> >
> > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support
> > for science education.
>
> Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't
> speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some
> PR work ?
>
> Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being
> above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that
> places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see
> that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better
> for us all. Sure.
Nice to see you're not considering yourself above anyone. *Cough*
> Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully
> be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T
> proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume
> that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass,
> then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of
anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists?
Certainly you don't think it's only atheists who protest their
actions?
> Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people
> saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy
Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations
concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant
denominations.
> By the
> count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast
> a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid
> voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
> When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that
> they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate
> religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a
> tenable position.
>
> Until then, it isn't. QED.
Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll
estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the
vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
QED
> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> denominations ?".
Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating
under some serious misconceptions.
Andre Lieven
"Silence gives assent." Where are they, when it comes to protesting
the shoving of ONE religion into PUBLIC schools, et al ? Uh huh.
> > > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> > > > group of people (the religious).
>
> > > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
>
> > > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support
> > > for science education.
>
> > Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't
> > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some
> > PR work ?
>
> > Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being
> > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that
> > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see
> > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better
> > for us all. Sure.
>
> Nice to see you're not considering yourself above anyone. *Cough*
I'm a smart guy, and there is empirical evidence of that in my grades,
when I was in school. In any case, I hold that *I* have an obligation,
starting to myself, to Get The Facts before I opine. That way, not
only
can those who know me, count on my information being good, but that
way, I also reduce the frequency of my own errors.
In that, I AM better than those who REFUSE to Get The Facts, those
who REFUSE to consider evidence and data as being BETTER means
of knowledge about the Universe than folktales and legends.
I AM an elitist, pal. NOT because it means that I am better, just for
showing up, but because I"VE DONE THE REQUIRED HOMEWORK.
If you have a problem with that, you can kiss my shiny metal ass.
> > Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully
> > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T
> > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume
> > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass,
> > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
>
> They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of
> anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists?
So ? Posting to newsgroups ISN'T what I'm talking about.
Protests, like, marches, speeches, petitions to legislatures, and so
on. The "reasonable" believers have been quite... ABSENT from that
field.
> Certainly you don't think it's only atheists who protest their
> actions?
No, I don't, but there aren't very many of us, by percentage of
population. For every atheists, there ought to be at least, say, five
or ten "reasonable" believers whose own rights to their religions
are at as much risk from the wingnutters as is atheists' rights to
non-religion.
Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T doing squat.
Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.
> > Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people
> > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
>
> They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy
> Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations
> concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant
> denominations.
Wow, a whole statement. I hope that their word processors didn't have
a conniption from all that effort...
Feh. As I said, let me know when those folks SHOW UP to school
board meetings where advocates for creationism are trying to get
that crap into the public schools. I was in Florida most of last
winter,
and the local paper had an article about some county school board
meeting where said pro creationism types were pushing their shite.
Yet, no such article mentioned any "reasonable" believers demanding
that religion stay out of the public school science classes...
> > By the
> > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast
> > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid
> > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
>
> Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
That's a part of my point; The NUMBERS of people who are "deeply
religious" are hardly likely to be TWICE that of the McKook/Pallid
voters. Ergo, MOST "deeply religious" people in the US thought that
McKook/Pallid was the BEST ticket to run the country, after eight
years of the Chimpenfuhrer. That makes my point.
> > When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that
> > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate
> > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a
> > tenable position.
>
> > Until then, it isn't. QED.
>
> Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
> You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll
> estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the
> vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
Wrong. You left out agnostics. Further, not ALL US voters who are
religious are "DEEPLY religious".
DUH !
> QED
Wrong. Ibid. Duh.
> > Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> > denominations ?".
>
> Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating
> under some serious misconceptions.
"What is asserted without evidence cen be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
Wheras, the evidence that the present crop of US wingnuters, from
the birthers, to the global warming deniers, to evolution deniers, ARE
almost all primarily "deeply religious" people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
Duh.
Andre
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey moron. Who do you think voted Obama in?
The vast majority that voted for Obama were people that believed in a
God or at least a creator. A large majority of liberals go to church.
Some of the Christian right obviously voted for him as well.
You claim to not be better then anyone else but for the 7 years i have
read your vomit on Usenet you do not miss an opportunity to dump on
America --every chance you can.
You give all atheist a bad name.
Tim Norfolk
>
> You're over-generalizing. �Deeply religious Jews, Catholics,
> Methodists, Episcopals, Presbyterians, etc., don't support Biblical
> creationism.
Actually, we have a rather vocal set of catholics locally who are
ardent YEC's. One is an industrial chemist.
Tim Norfolk
<snip>
>
> Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T doing squat.
>
> Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.
>
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, headed by a UCC
minister, Barry Lynn.
Andre Lieven
Sorry, I'm not your mom.
> Who do you think voted Obama in?
Mostly non kooks...
> The vast majority that voted for Obama were people that believed in a
> God or at least a creator. A large majority of liberals go to church.
> Some of the Christian right obviously voted for him as well.
So ? My point was about "DEEPLY religious" people.
NOT ALL religious people are DEEPLY religious, oh illiterate cretin.
> You claim to not be better then anyone else but for the 7 years i have
> read your vomit on Usenet you do not miss an opportunity to dump on
> America --every chance you can.
<Laughs> It's the US that "dumps" on itself, by behaving STOOPIDLY
a every chance that it gets. That has AbZero to do with me. I'm
Canadian.
I couldn't have voted for the Chimpenfuhrer or McKook/Pallid... Those
USians who DID, well, they showed how fucking willfully stoopid they
ARE...
"So, looking at a map of North America, we see Canada is not only
bigger than the US, but Canada is on top, as well. So, if Canada and
the US were in jail together, the US would be our *bitch*." Rick
Mercer.
<bg>
> You give all atheist a bad name.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
But, thanks for adding to the mounds of proof that religion = brain
damage.
"Here's your sign... " Bill Engvall.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Point, Me. <bg>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Wonderful, even the Wikipedia article on them shows that they've made
a few *speeches*... Which is good, but...
So did Walter Mondale...
My point was "Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
You have utterly FAILED to so, ergo, my points stands well confirmed.
Thank you for your concession... :-)
Andre
Burkhard
Try
from the Christians in Science website (the organisation opposes openly
and through lobbying the teaching of creationism as science)
http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/articles/SSR_Sept_2008_Poole.pdf
citing approvingly the PACe resolution:
"urges the member states ... 19.4. to firmly oppose
the teaching of creationism as a scientific
discipline on an equal footing with the theory
of evolution and in general resist presentation
of creationist ideas in any discipline other than
religion"
Burkhard
world? What are you looking for? Violent resistance??
Andre Lieven
Putting up a website isn't a protest, no, sorry. Actual protests
require
a VERB being in there...
> What are you looking for? Violent resistance??
Public demonstrations. A group going down to the school board meetings
where creationism in the science classes is on the table and SPEAKING
OUT IN PUBLIC against that violation of the separation of church and
state.
One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
that
a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for GRASS ROOTS
*actions*. You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have
achieved
what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
had actually DONE something along those lines.
So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
violence,
well, get help for that delusion...
Andre
Andre Lieven
And, their most recent grass roots actual action was...
Uh huh ? Press releases don't cut it.
Next !
For all the whining about the "new atheists", at least some such folks
are DOING actual THINGS, like the atheist bus campaign, which gets
the ideas out into the public sphere of discussion. Without even a
hint
of anyone getting a bloody nose, too.
What's that old saying that 80% of success is SHOWING UP ?
That's what I'm talking about, folks. Showing the fuck UP.
Andre
Burkhard
and another one:
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/mainnav/darwin/articles.aspx
The Church of England celebrated Darwin's Birthday in Westminster Abbey
and together with the Theos think tank organised a whole range of public
awareness events, lectures, theatre performances and talks to get
people interested in Darwin
and make the case for his theory. The Theos report is unequivocally
dismissive of both old fashioned creationism and modern ID and makes it
clear that they have NO role in the science curriculum.
p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
of how life developed, than the Torah is a
study of ethical origins.
>
> "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
Yet, strangely, your post is virtually evidence free - apart from some
anecdotes that is, and some absence of evidence that you parley into
evidence of absence
Rodjk #613
> "On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:53:12 -0800 (PST), in article
> <74b2adc0-f433-4fbb-8186-af8ed83e7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> >> reference to her views on evolution:
>
> >> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> >> Published: November 14, 2009
>
> >> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> >> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> >> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> >> trees.=94
>
> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=3D1&pagewanted...
> >2...>
>
> >> --
> >> ---Tom S.
> >> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is=
> > due to
> >> the currant jelly.
> >> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
> >masses.
>
> >Ron Okimoto
>
> It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for
> creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
>
> Not in any of the "official" reasons.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
What have the monkeys ever done for us?
:)
Rodjk #613
Burkhard
Websites in your world aren't public? Ever heard of the power of the
internet as political forum? If not, see for some real evidence e.g.
J Pickerill: Rethinking political participation: Experiments in Internet
activism in Australia and Britain ECPR STUDIES IN EUROPEAN POLITICAL
Science 2004
N Hara, Z Estrada: Analyzing the mobilization of grassroots activities
via the internet: a case study Journal of Information Science, 2005
G Redden: Networking dissent: The Internet and the Anti-globalisation
movement Mots Pluriels, 2001
> One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
> that
> a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for GRASS ROOTS
> *actions*.
Which is why they lost the last election, where Obama used the new
technology highly efficiently to his advantage
You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have
> achieved
> what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
>
> Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
> had actually DONE something along those lines.
>
> So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
> os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
>
> Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
>
> Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
>
> As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
> violence,
> well, get help for that delusion...
>
Wasn't my claim, I wanted clarification of your ..unusual.. use of the
word "protest"
> Andre
>
Burkhard
Compiling easy to understand information material for teachers to help
them when parents ask for the teaching of creationism,as matter of fact:
it has this quote:
"Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be
scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning
scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the
science community as a whole. Creationism and intelligent design
therefore do not form part of the science National Curriculum programmes
of study."
And being expert witnesses at the European Union deliberation that lead
to PACE (rather important giving the Bologna Process of harmonisation of
education in Europe, makes PACE a de facto law making declaration
> Uh huh ? Press releases don't cut it.
>
> Next !
>
> For all the whining about the "new atheists", at least some such folks
> are DOING actual THINGS,
You mean liek Dawkins web site?
John Wilkins
<9ff2fc4d-be04-4280...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
...
> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> denominations ?".
I've heard this complaint a few times. The fact that the leadership of
most denominations have in fact protested against the extremists in
their churches, and that the official position of nearly all
denominations have come out in favour of evolution seems to be
overlooked by people who make this complaint.
It's rather like those bigots who rhetorically ask why moderate muslims
don't protest against terrorism, when nearly all western based muslim
organisations have done precisely that, which, if reported at all, is
reported on page 43.
Andre Lieven
NOT in the sense of SHOWING UP, hell no.
> Ever heard of the power of the internet as political forum?
Ever heard of a school board that voted down teaching creationism in
a public school science classroom BECAUSE OF A WEBSITE ?
> If not, see for some real evidence e.g.
>
> J Pickerill: Rethinking political participation: Experiments in Internet
> activism in Australia and Britain ECPR STUDIES IN EUROPEAN POLITICAL
> Science 2004
>
> N Hara, Z Estrada: Analyzing the mobilization of grassroots activities
> via the internet: a case study Journal of Information Science, 2005
>
> G Redden: Networking dissent: The Internet and the Anti-globalisation
> movement Mots Pluriels, 2001
<Yawn> I asked for demostrable evidence of PUBLIC ACTION at any
such " lets pack the hall and get our religion into a public school
system"
public meeting.
So far, y'all are just making my point for me, again, and again, and
again...
> > One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
> > that a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for
> > GRASS ROOTS *actions*.
>
> Which is why they lost the last election, where Obama used the new
> technology highly efficiently to his advantage
So ? What has that to do with MY *specific question* ? Nothing.
> > You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have achieved
> > what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
>
> > Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
> > had actually DONE something along those lines.
>
> > So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
> > os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
>
> > Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
>
> > Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
>
> > As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
> > violence, well, get help for that delusion...
>
> Wasn't my claim, I wanted clarification of your ..unusual.. use of the
> word "protest"
English isn't the first language that I learned, but because it was
the
fats second, perhaps I value it's precision more than native English
speakers.
My use of "protest" was entirely conventional English. If that is a
peoblem
for you, then you need to take an ESL class, and this time...
PASS it.
But, still, you CAN'T show me ANY actions by " reasonable" religious
people to counter the ACTIONS of "deeply religious" creationists...
My point continues to stand and grow... <g>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Wow, they were brave enough to have a "Darwin was nifty and one of
US"
party...
> and together with the Theos think tank organised a whole range of public
> awareness events, lectures, theatre performances and talks to get
> people interested in Darwin
> and make the case for his theory. The Theos report is unequivocally
> dismissive of both old fashioned creationism and modern ID and makes it
> clear that they have NO role in the science curriculum.
And, how many reports does the public, especially, the " deeply
religious"
public READ... ? Uh huh.
> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
"Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
of
England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
actually paying attention...
> > "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> > evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
> Yet, strangely, your post is virtually evidence free - apart from some
> anecdotes that is, and some absence of evidence that you parley into
> evidence of absence.
Then, ALL that is needed to be done to show my claim to be in error
is to PROVIDE ACTUAL EXAMPLES of EXACTLY the kinds of public
demonstrations that I said aren't done by so called " reasonablle"
religious people/groups.
Yet, so far, NO ONE CAN.
Hmmm... The conclusion is clear: Y'all CAN'T, because my point was
factually correct.
QED, kiddies.
Andre
Andre Lieven
All lovely, and Good Things, BUT, 1) I was mostly speaking of North
America, and 2) What good are such nifty reports to a community where
THOSE WHO BOTHERED TO SHOW UP at the school board meeting
got the board to teach ID ?
> > Uh huh ? Press releases don't cut it.
>
> > Next !
>
> > For all the whining about the "new atheists", at least some such folks
> > are DOING actual THINGS,
>
> You mean liek Dawkins web site?
Yes, no doubt read with happy attention by MANY "deeply religious"
folks...
> > like the atheist bus campaign, which gets
> > the ideas out into the public sphere of discussion. Without even a
> > hint of anyone getting a bloody nose, too.
>
> > What's that old saying that 80% of success is SHOWING UP ?
>
> > That's what I'm talking about, folks. Showing the fuck UP.
And, NONE of what you offered addressed this, one little bit.
Next !
Andre
Burkhard
Still makes them public, the "showing up" was you moving gaolposts
>> Ever heard of the power of the internet as political forum?
>
> Ever heard of a school board that voted down teaching creationism in
> a public school science classroom BECAUSE OF A WEBSITE ?
>
Matter of fact yes. That was how the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born.
The initial letter do d not get any response, but once it became an
internet phenomenon, they caved in. You can read all about it on the
veganza website
>> If not, see for some real evidence e.g.
>>
>> J Pickerill: Rethinking political participation: Experiments in Internet
>> activism in Australia and Britain ECPR STUDIES IN EUROPEAN POLITICAL
>> Science 2004
>>
>> N Hara, Z Estrada: Analyzing the mobilization of grassroots activities
>> via the internet: a case study Journal of Information Science, 2005
>>
>> G Redden: Networking dissent: The Internet and the Anti-globalisation
>> movement Mots Pluriels, 2001
>
> <Yawn> I asked for demostrable evidence of PUBLIC ACTION at any
> such " lets pack the hall and get our religion into a public school
> system"
> public meeting.
No, you didn't. You asked for, and I quote:
"My point was "Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.""
You then moved the goalpost by claiming that some forms of protest are
not protest, giving flawed analogies as an "argument" - and these
_facts_ from both academic research and political experience show just
how flawed your argument was
>
> So far, y'all are just making my point for me, again, and again, and
> again...
>
>>> One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
>>> that a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for
>>> GRASS ROOTS *actions*.
>> Which is why they lost the last election, where Obama used the new
>> technology highly efficiently to his advantage
>
> So ? What has that to do with MY *specific question* ? Nothing.
>
It shows that internet based activities are a highly efficient form of
influencing political decision making and registering protest -
contradicting your claim
>>> You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have achieved
>>> what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
>>> Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
>>> had actually DONE something along those lines.
>>> So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
>>> os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
>>> Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
>>> Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
>>> As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
>>> violence, well, get help for that delusion...
>> Wasn't my claim, I wanted clarification of your ..unusual.. use of the
>> word "protest"
>
> English isn't the first language that I learned, but because it was
> the
> fats second, perhaps I value it's precision more than native English
> speakers.
>
Try a dictionary, it helps
Form Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: 1pro·test
Pronunciation: \ˈprō-ˌtest\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from protester
Date: 15th century
1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a
sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and
that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or
damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a
tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in
protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of
disapproval
3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an
idea or a course of action <went under protest>
4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport
These clearly covers protest in the form of articles, petitions,
internet blogs etc - they are solemn declarations of dissent, and "a
complaint, objection.. towards a course of action"
> My use of "protest" was entirely conventional English.
Your exclusion of lots of forms of activity that are commonly called
protest surely wasn't - as the dictionary definition shows. When Luther
started PROTESTanstism by nailing a a piece of paper at a door, that was
protest, not a "press cutting".
Burkhard
so now we move the goalposts across the Atlantic? I take it then that
you wont; use Dawkins any longer as evidence of the efficiency of the
new atheists, after all he is British too.
Burkhard
As maybe, but you are of course moving the gaols post again. You start
with a claim tat nobody protests, now you are whining that the form of
protest is inefficient.
And as long as the people who draft legislation read it, and theos
organised several events with Members of Parliament, I;d say that is
rather more efficient than standing in the rain and handing out leaflets
in the middle of nowhere, which seems to be your idea of political
protest which is just soo 1970s
>
>> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
>> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
>
> "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
> of
> England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
>
> That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
> actually paying attention...
So what? and I quote you "Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T
doing squat. Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
reasonable believers, not "deeply religious believers. boy, these
goalpost sure must be heavy by now
>
>>> "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
>>> evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>> Yet, strangely, your post is virtually evidence free - apart from some
>> anecdotes that is, and some absence of evidence that you parley into
>> evidence of absence.
>
> Then, ALL that is needed to be done to show my claim to be in error
> is to PROVIDE ACTUAL EXAMPLES of EXACTLY the kinds of public
> demonstrations that I said aren't done by so called " reasonablle"
> religious people/groups.
I did. you just didn't like it. And anyway, since you did not give any
evidence, I dismissed your claim as Hitchens suggest
>
> Yet, so far, NO ONE CAN.
>
> Hmmm... The conclusion is clear: Y'all CAN'T, because my point was
> factually correct.
>
> QED, kiddies.
>
> Andre
>
So where are the goalposts now? Public lectures, theatre performances
and talks aren't public either, in your world?
John Wilkins
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Look, you're dealing with a True Believer, so those goalposts are
mounted on low friction bearings. As soon as you come up with public
demonstrations, he will say that he wanted confrontations on the street
between creationists and moderate theists. Nothing will satisfy him
because all facts are either supportive of him or irrelevant.
VoiceOfReason
And they are a tiny minority of Catholics. The rest of us think
they're babbling morons.
VoiceOfReason
They aren't silent. Who do you think is speaking out against them?
You ARE aware that it's been shot down every time by other theists?
Most theists don't want their children to be force-fed someone else's
religious beliefs.
Are you under some weird impression that the world has been saved by
the atheist cavalry or something?
> > > > > But when you state that "the primary morality of the deeply religious
> > > > > is to be a self serving and willfully ignorant LIAR" you are not just
> > > > > talking about Palin, you are casting foolish aspersions upon a huge
> > > > > group of people (the religious).
> >
> > > > > It's as obviously silly as it is self-serving (not to mention
> > > > > ridiculously unparsimonious).
> >
> > > > Agreed. Alienating *all* religious people is no way to gain support
> > > > for science education.
> >
> > > Perhaps not, but then one must ask one's self why one shouldn't
> > > speak what one sees to be true, just for the purposes of doing some
> > > PR work ?
> >
> > > Let me be clear: I am not an atheist because I see myself as being
> > > above anyone. Rather, it is but one facet of my value system that
> > > places facts and evidence over desires and folktales. I can well see
> > > that it would be nice if there were a sky daddy, making things better
> > > for us all. Sure.
> >
> > Nice to see you're not considering yourself above anyone. *Cough*
>
> I'm a smart guy, and there is empirical evidence of that in my grades,
> when I was in school. In any case, I hold that *I* have an obligation,
> starting to myself, to Get The Facts before I opine. That way, not
> only
> can those who know me, count on my information being good, but that
> way, I also reduce the frequency of my own errors.
So you studied. That's nice. Are you under the impression nobody
else in the world did except you?
> In that, I AM better than those who REFUSE to Get The Facts, those
> who REFUSE to consider evidence and data as being BETTER means
> of knowledge about the Universe than folktales and legends.
So you have contempt for religious people. Why am I not surprised?
> I AM an elitist, pal. NOT because it means that I am better, just for
> showing up, but because I"VE DONE THE REQUIRED HOMEWORK.
Ah, well the caps prove it then, eh?
> If you have a problem with that, you can kiss my shiny metal ass.
Glad you're being so intellectual about the whole thing.
> > > Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully
> > > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T
> > > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume
> > > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass,
> > > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
> >
> > They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of
> > anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists?
>
> So ? Posting to newsgroups ISN'T what I'm talking about.
>
> Protests, like, marches, speeches, petitions to legislatures, and so
> on. The "reasonable" believers have been quite... ABSENT from that
> field.
Can you see a bunch of people marching on DC 'militantly' demanding
the status quo? That's for the nutbars. Reasonable people get things
done through ballot box, the courts, etc.
> > Certainly you don't think it's only atheists who protest their
> > actions?
>
> No, I don't, but there aren't very many of us, by percentage of
> population. For every atheists, there ought to be at least, say, five
> or ten "reasonable" believers whose own rights to their religions
> are at as much risk from the wingnutters as is atheists' rights to
> non-religion.
>
> Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T doing squat.
>
> Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.
* Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) Supreme Court decision
* McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
* Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Supreme Court decision
* Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)
* Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman
Stearns et al. (2005-)
* Caldwell v. Caldwell et al. (2005-2009)
* Caldwell v. Roseville Joint Union High School District et al.
(2005-2007)
* C.F. et al. v. Capistrano Unified School District et al. (2007-)
* Comer v. Scott and Texas Education Agency (2008-)
* Daniel v. Waters and Steele v. Waters (1973-1975)
* Doe v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al. (2008-)
* Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1994-2000)
* Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al. (2009-)
* Hendren v. Campbell (1977)
* Hurst v. Newman (2006)
* LeVake v. Independent School District #656 (1999-2002)
* Institute for Creation Research Graduate School v. Paredes et
al. (2009-)
* Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1991-1994)
* Segraves et al. v. State of California et al. (1979-1981)
* Selman v. Cobb County, GA (2002-2006)
* Webster et al. v. New Lenox School District et al. (1987-1990)
You were saying?
> > > Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people
> > > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
> >
> > They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy
> > Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations
> > concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant
> > denominations.
>
> Wow, a whole statement. I hope that their word processors didn't have
> a conniption from all that effort...
>
> Feh. As I said, let me know when those folks SHOW UP to school
> board meetings where advocates for creationism are trying to get
> that crap into the public schools. I was in Florida most of last
> winter,
> and the local paper had an article about some county school board
> meeting where said pro creationism types were pushing their shite.
>
> Yet, no such article mentioned any "reasonable" believers demanding
> that religion stay out of the public school science classes...
See above.
> > > By the
> > > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast
> > > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid
> > > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
> >
> > Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
>
> That's a part of my point; The NUMBERS of people who are "deeply
> religious" are hardly likely to be TWICE that of the McKook/Pallid
> voters. Ergo, MOST "deeply religious" people in the US thought that
> McKook/Pallid was the BEST ticket to run the country, after eight
> years of the Chimpenfuhrer. That makes my point.
Now you're just making shit up.
> > > When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that
> > > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate
> > > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a
> > > tenable position.
> >
> > > Until then, it isn't. QED.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
>
> "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
> Christopher Hitchens.
My, aren't we the hypocrite.
> > You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll
> > estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the
> > vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
>
> Wrong. You left out agnostics. Further, not ALL US voters who are
> religious are "DEEPLY religious".
>
> DUH !
You need to study more Hitchens.
> > QED
>
> Wrong. Ibid. Duh.
>
> > > Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> > > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> > > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> > > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> > > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> > > denominations ?".
> >
> > Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating
> > under some serious misconceptions.
>
> "What is asserted without evidence cen be dismissed without evidence."
> Christopher Hitchens.
You seem fond of ignoring your own advice.
> Wheras, the evidence that the present crop of US wingnuters, from
> the birthers, to the global warming deniers, to evolution deniers, ARE
> almost all primarily "deeply religious" people.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
Again, you over-generalize. Your bigotry is quite evident.
> Duh.
Duh indeed.
macaddicted
I'll grant that ID is preferable, from a theological standpoint, but YEC
is going to be a non-starter in the Church.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
Andre Lieven
And, had Dawkins NEVER SPOKEN in the US, AND had his book
The God Delusion NEVER sold a copy in the US, you might even have
a point.
Instead, all you have is a Spinny Splat !
Andre Lieven
Wrong. I also don't care if you and a girl kiss "in public", as that,
as
well, has zilch to do with going to the PUBLIC EVENTS where
decisions WRT the topic are made.
My apologies if you were too thick to grasp that point.
> >> Ever heard of the power of the internet as political forum?
>
> > Ever heard of a school board that voted down teaching creationism in
> > a public school science classroom BECAUSE OF A WEBSITE ?
>
> Matter of fact yes. That was how the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born.
> The initial letter do d not get any response, but once it became an
> internet phenomenon, they caved in. You can read all about it on the
> veganza website
And, how many PUBLIC events where decisions on putting creationism
into public schools has the FSM made a presence at ?
Uh huh.
> >> If not, see for some real evidence e.g.
>
> >> J Pickerill: Rethinking political participation: Experiments in Internet
> >> activism in Australia and Britain ECPR STUDIES IN EUROPEAN POLITICAL
> >> Science 2004
>
> >> N Hara, Z Estrada: Analyzing the mobilization of grassroots activities
> >> via the internet: a case study Journal of Information Science, 2005
>
> >> G Redden: Networking dissent: The Internet and the Anti-globalisation
> >> movement Mots Pluriels, 2001
>
> > <Yawn> I asked for demostrable evidence of PUBLIC ACTION at any
> > such " lets pack the hall and get our religion into a public school
> > system" public meeting.
>
> No, you didn't. You asked for, and I quote:
> "My point was "Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.""
<Laughs> Yeah, when people say " protests", geeks like you seem to
think that a good hard Tweet counts...
I laugh at thee...
> You then moved the goalpost by claiming that some forms of protest are
> not protest, giving flawed analogies as an "argument" - and these
> _facts_ from both academic research and political experience show just
> how flawed your argument was
<Laughs> Other than the MAIN POINT that those web geeking activities
aren't anything but Preaching To The Converted.
Once again, my apologies: Apparently, you also believe that a practice
by an NHL hockey team should count for 2 points in the Games Won
standaings.... Uh, no.
> > So far, y'all are just making my point for me, again, and again, and
> > again...
>
> >>> One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
> >>> that a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for
> >>> GRASS ROOTS *actions*.
> >> Which is why they lost the last election, where Obama used the new
> >> technology highly efficiently to his advantage
>
> > So ? What has that to do with MY *specific question* ? Nothing.
>
> It shows that internet based activities are a highly efficient form of
> influencing political decision making and registering protest -
> contradicting your claim
Or, that NONE of you could pony up even ONE example of "reasonable"
religious people speaking out, in PUBLIC, where others are pushing for
creationism, or some other daft "deeply religious" bit of wingnuttery.
Just think: If we had had the Internet 1,000 years ago, a bunch of
geeks could have WON the Crusades, all by just putting up the
COOLEST anti-Crusade website... <Laughs>
> >>> You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have achieved
> >>> what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
> >>> Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
> >>> had actually DONE something along those lines.
> >>> So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
> >>> os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
> >>> Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
> >>> Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
> >>> As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
> >>> violence, well, get help for that delusion...
> >> Wasn't my claim, I wanted clarification of your ..unusual.. use of the
> >> word "protest"
>
> > English isn't the first language that I learned, but because it was
> > the fast second, perhaps I value it's precision more than native English
> > speakers.
>
> Try a dictionary, it helps
>
> Form Merriam-Webster
Who are these "Form Merriam-Webster" goons ? <laughs>
> Main Entry: 1pro·test
> Pronunciation: \ˈprō-ˌtest\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from protester
> Date: 15th century
>
> 1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a
> sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and
> that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or
> damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a
> tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
> 2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in
> protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of
> disapproval
There you go, Number 2, was that so fucking hard ?
"a usually organised PUBLIC demonstration..."
So, pony one up, or conceed that MY accurate point that the so
called "reasonable" religious folks just DON'T do that...
> 3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an
> idea or a course of action <went under protest>
> 4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport
>
> These clearly covers protest in the form of articles, petitions,
> internet blogs etc - they are solemn declarations of dissent, and "a
> complaint, objection.. towards a course of action"
Other than that any ONE use of the word protest does NOT necessarily
include ALL possible uses of the word.
Try again, sparky. Only ONE person gets to decide WHICH use I
meant: ME.
> > My use of "protest" was entirely conventional English.
>
> Your exclusion of lots of forms of activity that are commonly called
> protest surely wasn't - as the dictionary definition shows. When Luther
> started PROTESTanstism by nailing a a piece of paper at a door, that was
> protest, not a "press cutting".
So ? I'm talking about so called "reasonable religious" people
speaking
out against the "deeply religious" wingnutters. Was Luther at any ID
rallies ? Duh.
> > If that is a peoblem
> > for you, then you need to take an ESL class, and this time...
>
> > PASS it.
>
> > But, still, you CAN'T show me ANY actions by " reasonable" religious
> > people to counter the ACTIONS of "deeply religious" creationists...
>
> > My point continues to stand and grow... <g>
... And, grow and grow... <bg>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Bullshit,. spinny. I was very clear right from the start:
"reasonable"
religious people protesting/demonstrating at events where there ARE
the "deeply reigious" wingnutters promulgating such of their lunacy
as creationism.
That YOU FAILED to read this for comprehension, is no one's
responsibility but YOURS...
> And as long as the people who draft legislation read it, and theos
> organised several events with Members of Parliament, I;d say that is
> rather more efficient than standing in the rain and handing out leaflets
> in the middle of nowhere, which seems to be your idea of political
> protest which is just soo 1970s
Once again, my point was specific to the US. Do you Brits have any
Sarah Pallid loony clones running around, telling LIES about
evolution,
while preparing to run for public office, again ?
Uh huh.
> >> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
> >> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
>
> > "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
> > of
> > England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
>
> > That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
> > actually paying attention...
>
> So what? and I quote you "Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T
> doing squat. Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
>
> reasonable believers, not "deeply religious believers. boy, these
> goalpost sure must be heavy by now
OK, you are now an official IDIOT. My distinction is germaine, because
the claim that I am not buying is that there is a large community of
"reasonable" religious people who are said to oppose the rabid
wingnuttery of those I called the "deeply religious" folks.
Obviously, nutjob, I DIDN'T mean that the "deeply religious" nuts
would be protesting THEMSELVES. Ergo, the "reasonable" religious
people would be who WOULD protest and oppose the loonies, and
my point is that, IF those "reasonable" ones exist in any menaingful
way,
Andre Lieven
> In article <hdsuc4$mo...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard
ROTFLMAO ! At you.
My point remains what it has ALWAYS been: In order for the
claim made AT me that the majority of religious people are
"reasonable", ALL I WANT is evidence that at least some of
these mythical creatures GOT UP and WENT OUT to SPEAK
OUT AGAINST the excesses of THEIR fellow religious folks.
Yet, in ALL of your futile fulminating, you CAN'T pony up such a
happening anywhere in the US.
Thus, MY point... STANDS. QED, bunnies.
> so those goalposts are
> mounted on low friction bearings. As soon as you come up with public
> demonstrations, he will say that he wanted confrontations on the street
> between creationists and moderate theists. Nothing will satisfy him
> because all facts are either supportive of him or irrelevant.
"That which is ASSerted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> > >> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
> > >> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
>
> > > "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
> > > of
> > > England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
>
> > > That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
> > > actually paying attention...
>
> > So what? and I quote you "Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T
> > doing squat. Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> > school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
>
> > reasonable believers, not "deeply religious believers. boy, these
> > goalpost sure must be heavy by now
>
> > >>> "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> > >>> evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> > >> Yet, strangely, your post is virtually evidence free - apart from some
> > >> anecdotes that is, and some absence of evidence that you parley
Andre
Burkhard
Right. In your original posts, "showing up" was not mentioned
I also don't care if you and a girl kiss "in public", as that,
> as
> well, has zilch to do with going to the PUBLIC EVENTS where
> decisions WRT the topic are made.
>
> My apologies if you were too thick to grasp that point.
>
Maybe you should learn to say what you mean, rather then leave it to
people to read your mind?
>>>> Ever heard of the power of the internet as political forum?
>>> Ever heard of a school board that voted down teaching creationism in
>>> a public school science classroom BECAUSE OF A WEBSITE ?
>> Matter of fact yes. That was how the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born.
>> The initial letter do d not get any response, but once it became an
>> internet phenomenon, they caved in. You can read all about it on the
>> veganza website
>
> And, how many PUBLIC events where decisions on putting creationism
> into public schools has the FSM made a presence at ?
>
You wanted to get an example where a website resulting a change of board
decision, I gave you one. And I quote: "ever heard of a school board
that voted down teaching creationism in a public school science
classroom BECAUSE OF A WEBSITE"
> Uh huh.
>
>>>> If not, see for some real evidence e.g.
>>>> J Pickerill: Rethinking political participation: Experiments in Internet
>>>> activism in Australia and Britain ECPR STUDIES IN EUROPEAN POLITICAL
>>>> Science 2004
>>>> N Hara, Z Estrada: Analyzing the mobilization of grassroots activities
>>>> via the internet: a case study Journal of Information Science, 2005
>>>> G Redden: Networking dissent: The Internet and the Anti-globalisation
>>>> movement Mots Pluriels, 2001
>>> <Yawn> I asked for demostrable evidence of PUBLIC ACTION at any
>>> such " lets pack the hall and get our religion into a public school
>>> system" public meeting.
>> No, you didn't. You asked for, and I quote:
>> "My point was "Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
>> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.""
>
> <Laughs> Yeah, when people say " protests", geeks like you seem to
> think that a good hard Tweet counts...
>
> I laugh at thee...
>
>> You then moved the goalpost by claiming that some forms of protest are
>> not protest, giving flawed analogies as an "argument" - and these
>> _facts_ from both academic research and political experience show just
>> how flawed your argument was
>
> <Laughs> Other than the MAIN POINT that those web geeking activities
> aren't anything but Preaching To The Converted.
Sure, only that you invent new "main points" every time your old points
are shown wrong
>
> Once again, my apologies: Apparently, you also believe that a practice
> by an NHL hockey team should count for 2 points in the Games Won
> standaings.... Uh, no.
>
>>> So far, y'all are just making my point for me, again, and again, and
>>> again...
>>>>> One of the few things that the ridiculous right does understand is
>>>>> that a website with some nice words is NOT a substitute for
>>>>> GRASS ROOTS *actions*.
>>>> Which is why they lost the last election, where Obama used the new
>>>> technology highly efficiently to his advantage
>>> So ? What has that to do with MY *specific question* ? Nothing.
>> It shows that internet based activities are a highly efficient form of
>> influencing political decision making and registering protest -
>> contradicting your claim
>
> Or, that NONE of you could pony up even ONE example of "reasonable"
> religious people speaking out, in PUBLIC, where others are pushing for
> creationism, or some other daft "deeply religious" bit of wingnuttery.
>
Apart of course form all the evidence you got by now
> Just think: If we had had the Internet 1,000 years ago, a bunch of
> geeks could have WON the Crusades, all by just putting up the
> COOLEST anti-Crusade website... <Laughs>
Still, would have been public - you loose. If you had meant to say: "No
religious FUNDAMENTALIST ever takes DIRECT ACTION by SHOWING UO IN
PERSON to BOARD MEETINGS to prevent HIGHLY EFFICENTLY through his
sheer physical presence the teaching of ID", I would not have disagreed.
Your claim of course was rather different, (just as a reminder since
you seem to have problems remembering your own posts, which is
understandable - I would want to forget them as well if I ever wrote
such nonsense: "Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST school taught
creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
On that, it was rather easy to deliver
>
>>>>> You wanna try to tell anyone that ML King would have achieved
>>>>> what he did with a nifty website being his ONLY effort ? Really ?
>>>>> Now, I simplay asked for evidence that SOME "reasonable" believers
>>>>> had actually DONE something along those lines.
>>>>> So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE
>>>>> os that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
>>>>> Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
>>>>> Thanks for all of your concessions on my accurate point... :-)
>>>>> As for the asinine comment that any public actions MUST involve
>>>>> violence, well, get help for that delusion...
>>>> Wasn't my claim, I wanted clarification of your ..unusual.. use of the
>>>> word "protest"
>>> English isn't the first language that I learned, but because it was
>>> the fast second, perhaps I value it's precision more than native English
>>> speakers.
>> Try a dictionary, it helps
>>
>> Form Merriam-Webster
>
> Who are these "Form Merriam-Webster" goons ? <laughs>
They are an American company that publishes reference books, especially
dictionaries since 1828 Today they Merriam–Webster is a subsidiary of
Encyclopædia Britannica. You might want to try their products one day,
it woudl probably help a lot.
>
>> Main Entry: 1pro·test
>> Pronunciation: \ˈprō-ˌtest\
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Middle English, from protester
>> Date: 15th century
>>
>> 1 : a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a
>> sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and
>> that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or
>> damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a
>> tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
>> 2 : the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in
>> protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of
>> disapproval
>
> There you go, Number 2, was that so fucking hard ?
You asked for evidence for public protest, not a specific form of public
protest
>
> "a usually organised PUBLIC demonstration..."
>
> So, pony one up, or conceed that MY accurate point that the so
> called "reasonable" religious folks just DON'T do that...
>
>> 3 : a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an
>> idea or a course of action <went under protest>
>> 4 : an objection made to an official or a governing body of a sport
>>
>> These clearly covers protest in the form of articles, petitions,
>> internet blogs etc - they are solemn declarations of dissent, and "a
>> complaint, objection.. towards a course of action"
>
> Other than that any ONE use of the word protest does NOT necessarily
> include ALL possible uses of the word.
my point exactly. you asked for evidence of "public protest" without
specification, so any evidence for public protest under the definition
will do.
>
> Try again, sparky. Only ONE person gets to decide WHICH use I
> meant: ME.
So when you ask for evidence of "public protest", you can dismiss all
the evidence of public protest that doesn't use your personal
definition, a definition you sort of failed to tell us? Yep, sounds
extremely reasonable. like Adman, when he dismisses evidence for
evolution because in hi world, "evidence" means something else.
>
>>> My use of "protest" was entirely conventional English.
>> Your exclusion of lots of forms of activity that are commonly called
>> protest surely wasn't - as the dictionary definition shows. When Luther
>> started PROTESTanstism by nailing a a piece of paper at a door, that was
>> protest, not a "press cutting".
>
> So ? I'm talking about so called "reasonable religious" people
> speaking
> out against the "deeply religious" wingnutters. Was Luther at any ID
> rallies ? Duh.
>
It was an example that putting protest in writing is a form of protests,
something you denied, duh
Andre Lieven
the "deeply religious" wingnutters promulgating such of their lunacy
as creationism.
That YOU FAILED to read this for comprehension, is no one's
responsibility but YOURS...
> And as long as the people who draft legislation read it, and theos
> organised several events with Members of Parliament, I;d say that is
> rather more efficient than standing in the rain and handing out leaflets
> in the middle of nowhere, which seems to be your idea of political
> protest which is just soo 1970s
Once again, my point was specific to the US. Do you Brits have any
Sarah Pallid loony clones running around, telling LIES about
evolution, while preparing to run for public office, again ?
Where’s the future candidate saying “Hold up a second, folks, just
because many of us are religious, that doesn’t mean that we cannot
deal with the facts of science without having major religious
conniptions about it.” ?
Uh huh.
> >> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
> >> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
> > "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
> > of England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
> >
> > That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
> > actually paying attention...
>
> So what? and I quote you "Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T
> doing squat. Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
> reasonable believers, not "deeply religious believers. boy, these
> goalpost sure must be heavy by now
OK, you are now an official IDIOT. My distinction is germaine,
because
the claim that I am not buying is that there is a large community of
"reasonable" religious people who are said to oppose the rabid
wingnuttery of those I called the "deeply religious" folks.
Obviously, nutjob, I DIDN'T mean that the "deeply religious" nuts
would be protesting THEMSELVES. Ergo, the "reasonable" religious
people would be who WOULD protest and oppose the loonies, and
my point is that, IF those "reasonable" ones exist in any meaningful
way, and they would be DISTINCT from the “deeply religious” types
by that profound difference of view and expression therof.
> >>> "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> >>> evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
> >> Yet, strangely, your post is virtually evidence free - apart from some
> >> anecdotes that is, and some absence of evidence that you parley into
> >> evidence of absence.
>
> > Then, ALL that is needed to be done to show my claim to be in error
> > is to PROVIDE ACTUAL EXAMPLES of EXACTLY the kinds of public
> > demonstrations that I said aren't done by so called " reasonable"
> > religious people/groups.
>
> I did. you just didn't like it. And anyway, since you did not give any
> evidence, I dismissed your claim as Hitchens suggest
The Fallacy of Proving A Negative just tripped up your foot as it flew
into your mouth, skippy. I'm just saying that the "reasonable"
religious
folks AREN'T going out to face down the "deeply religious" IDiots.
My hypothesis is eminently falsifyable: Just pony up examples of
the "reasonable religious" types DOING JUST EXACTLY THAT.
But, you CAN'T, and you're frothing in frustration about YOUR failure.
Not my problem... <Laughs>
Burkhard
So people in North America can't access the UK based websites I cited,
and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America isn;t any longe
member of the Anglican communion?
Burkhard
We sure have - that you don't know about them only proves your insularity.
>
>>>> p51 of the theos report: "Genesis 1-3 is no more a “scientific” account
>>>> of how life developed, than the Torah is a study of ethical origins.
>>> "Theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church
>>> of
>>> England." Yes Prime Minister, The Bishop's Gambit.
>>> That the CoE isn't "deeply religious" should not be news to anyone
>>> actually paying attention...
>> So what? and I quote you "Yet, those "reasonable" believers.... AREN'T
>> doing squat. Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
>> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
>>
>> reasonable believers, not "deeply religious believers. boy, these
>> goalpost sure must be heavy by now
>
> OK, you are now an official IDIOT. My distinction is germaine, because
> the claim that I am not buying is that there is a large community of
> "reasonable" religious people who are said to oppose the rabid
> wingnuttery of those I called the "deeply religious" folks.
>
> Obviously, nutjob, I DIDN'T mean that the "deeply religious" nuts
> would be protesting THEMSELVES. Ergo, the "reasonable" religious
> people would be who WOULD protest and oppose the loonies, and
> my point is that, IF those "reasonable" ones exist in any menaingful
> way,
>
Indeed. and when I gave you examples of reasonable believers in the form
of the CoE, your objection was, and I quote: "that the CoE isn't "deeply
religious" should not be news to anyone actually paying attention."
So what point do you think you were making there?
Andre Lieven
Funny, it read to me that it was shot down by actual COURTS...
> Most theists don't want their children to be force-fed someone else's
> religious beliefs.
Prove it.
> Are you under some weird impression that the world has been saved by
> the atheist cavalry or something?
Nope, just that the "reasonable" religious types are mysteriously
SILENT when it comes to facing down the "deeply religious" nutbags.
Nope. I'm just saying where I'm coming from. Are you under a delusion
that I am speaking for anyone other than myself ?
> > In that, I AM better than those who REFUSE to Get The Facts, those
> > who REFUSE to consider evidence and data as being BETTER means
> > of knowledge about the Universe than folktales and legends.
>
> So you have contempt for religious people. Why am I not surprised?
Why shouldn't any reasonable person have contempt for people who
believe crazy things for which there is AbZero evidence in support
therof ?
Here are a few of my views: If you oppose evolution for any reason,
you're contemptable. If you think that Sarah Pallid is a viable and
reasonable person and candidate for national office, you're
contemptable. If you want to quietly worship any religious figure,
you're daft, but at least you're leaving the rest of us the hell
alone.
But, if you worship AND you have a need to "preach the word" to
those of us who DON'T WANT IT, you're contemptable.
Is that clear enough ?
> > I AM an elitist, pal. NOT because it means that I am better, just for
> > showing up, but because I"VE DONE THE REQUIRED HOMEWORK.
>
> Ah, well the caps prove it then, eh?
Emphasis. Look it up sometime.
> > If you have a problem with that, you can kiss my shiny metal ass.
>
> Glad you're being so intellectual about the whole thing.
Forthrightness, look that up, too.
> > > > Given all of the goings on in the US these days, can it truthfully
> > > > be said that the vast bulk of the lunatic wingnutter fringe DOESN'T
> > > > proclaim itself to be "deeply religious"? And, if we are to presume
> > > > that there is a larger more reasonable moderate religious mass,
> > > > then WHERE THE F ARE THEY in protesting the wingnutters ?
>
> > > They *are* protesting the wingnutters. You are aware that a lot of
> > > anti-creationist folks in T.O and other newsgroups are theists?
>
> > So ? Posting to newsgroups ISN'T what I'm talking about.
>
> > Protests, like, marches, speeches, petitions to legislatures, and so
> > on. The "reasonable" believers have been quite... ABSENT from that
> > field.
>
> Can you see a bunch of people marching on DC 'militantly' demanding
> the status quo? That's for the nutbars. Reasonable people get things
> done through ballot box, the courts, etc.
Really ? How'd that work in 2000 ?
<yawn> Court rulings. Sure, that's a MASS of "reasonable" religious
types voicing their views.
Oh wait... it ISN'T.
Thanks for your latest concession. <laughs>
> > > > Where is the large moderate mass of "deeply religious" people
> > > > saying "No, these wingbutters do NOT speak for us!"?
>
> > > They're out there, and speaking out. For one example, see the Clergy
> > > Letter Project. Then look up statements from religious organizations
> > > concerning evolution, especially the RCC and mainstream Protestant
> > > denominations.
>
> > Wow, a whole statement. I hope that their word processors didn't have
> > a conniption from all that effort...
>
> > Feh. As I said, let me know when those folks SHOW UP to school
> > board meetings where advocates for creationism are trying to get
> > that crap into the public schools. I was in Florida most of last
> > winter,
> > and the local paper had an article about some county school board
> > meeting where said pro creationism types were pushing their shite.
>
> > Yet, no such article mentioned any "reasonable" believers demanding
> > that religion stay out of the public school science classes...
>
> See above.
Why ? Is it being tangential, at best, irrelevent, at worst, gonna
change
with a second look ?
> > > > By the
> > > > count of last year's US eection, *at least* 45% of those who cast
> > > > a ballot are wingnutters. The correlation between McKook/Pallid
> > > > voters and "deeply religious" wingnutters is well established.
>
> > > Right-wingers primarily vote Republican. No surprise there.
>
> > That's a part of my point; The NUMBERS of people who are "deeply
> > religious" are hardly likely to be TWICE that of the McKook/Pallid
> > voters. Ergo, MOST "deeply religious" people in the US thought that
> > McKook/Pallid was the BEST ticket to run the country, after eight
> > years of the Chimpenfuhrer. That makes my point.
>
> Now you're just making shit up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
McCain/Palin: 59,934,814, 45.66%
That's a LOT of people who seemed to feel that the Republican Party
was doing just fine...
I'd say that most of those goons who voted for that pair of clucks,
fit nicely into my "deeply religious" wingnutter crowd... 45% of the
US electorate. I rather doubt that hardly any atheists voted that
ticket...
> > > > When such moderate masses start to deal with the lunatics that
> > > > they enable within their own tent, then the proposition that moderate
> > > > religious people, as a mass, are not a problem might become a
> > > > tenable position.
>
> > > > Until then, it isn't. QED.
>
> > > Non sequitur. Moderate masses *do* deal with the lunatics.
>
> > "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
> > Christopher Hitchens.
>
> My, aren't we the hypocrite.
<Projection>
> > > You are aware of who won the election last year? A recent Gallup poll
> > > estimated that about 5% of the US population are atheists. Hence, the
> > > vast majority of those voting for Obama were theists.
>
> > Wrong. You left out agnostics. Further, not ALL US voters who are
> > religious are "DEEPLY religious".
>
> > DUH !
>
> You need to study more Hitchens.
<Projection>
> > > QED
>
> > Wrong. Ibid. Duh.
>
> > > > Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> > > > personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> > > > not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> > > > as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> > > > any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> > > > denominations ?".
>
> > > Wingnutters haven't taken over my denomination. You're operating
> > > under some serious misconceptions.
>
> > "What is asserted without evidence cen be dismissed without evidence."
> > Christopher Hitchens.
>
> You seem fond of ignoring your own advice.
<Projection>
> > Wheras, the evidence that the present crop of US wingnuters, from
> > the birthers, to the global warming deniers, to evolution deniers, ARE
> > almost all primarily "deeply religious" people.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
>
> Again, you over-generalize.
Ibid Hitchens.
> Your bigotry is quite evident.
<Projection>
> > Duh.
>
> Duh indeed.
<Projection>
Andre
Burkhard
Indeed it is - just look up some of the plaintiffs in these cases. E.g.
in Selman v. Cobb County, GA (2002-2006) you'll find that they are
religious (in the court transcripts of the case, you'll see that their
lawyer uses this quite skilfully to show that this is not an atheism issue)
Now, bringing a successful court action (and paying for the costs
initially at least) to stop a practice could be called "protest", don't
you think? And trials are public, too. And hey, even more evidence: if
you look again at e.g. the Selman transcript, you'll find that two of
the plaintiffs DID attend school board meetings, raised their objection
there, later wrote letters other's parents and the board, involved
newspapers etc etc - all the things you claimed, without any evidence,
would not happen...
VoiceOfReason
Courts populated primarily by atheists or theists?
> > Most theists don't want their children to be force-fed someone else's
> > religious beliefs.
>
> Prove it.
Are you so profoundly clueless to think that theists don't mind their
children being force-fed other religious beliefs?
> > Are you under some weird impression that the world has been saved by
> > the atheist cavalry or something?
>
> Nope, just that the "reasonable" religious types are mysteriously
> SILENT when it comes to facing down the "deeply religious" nutbags.
The mystery is why you invented this assertion.
So you're contemptuous of people who believe Beethoven was the best
composer of all time? Or that Ayn Rand was a magnificent author?
Or are you just contemptuous of people whose views differ from your
own?
> Here are a few of my views: If you oppose evolution for any reason,
> you're contemptable. If you think that Sarah Pallid is a viable and
> reasonable person and candidate for national office, you're
> contemptable. If you want to quietly worship any religious figure,
> you're daft, but at least you're leaving the rest of us the hell
> alone.
Well, whether or not you ever learn to spell contemptible, it's still
apparent that you hold a lot of contempt for a lot of people. You
might want to see somebody about that.
> But, if you worship AND you have a need to "preach the word" to
> those of us who DON'T WANT IT, you're contemptable.
>
> Is that clear enough ?
Yes, it's clear that you're a holier-than-thou atheist and a bigot.
I've heard enough hate speech for now...
<snip>
VoiceOfReason
The same was true in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (hmm,
that's a school board come to think of it). Several of the plaintiff
parents were theists, including one pair who taught Vacation Bible
School. And Judge Jones is a conservative Republican Lutheran.
> Now, bringing a successful court action (and paying for the costs
> initially at least) to stop a practice could be called "protest", don't
> you think? And trials are public, too. And hey, even more evidence: if
> you look again at e.g. the Selman transcript, you'll find that two of
> the plaintiffs DID attend school board meetings, raised their objection
> there, later wrote letters other's parents and the board, involved
> newspapers etc etc - all the things you claimed, without any evidence,
> would not happen...
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." :-)
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>You claim to not be better then anyone else but for the 7 years i have
>read your vomit on Usenet you do not miss an opportunity to dump on
>America --every chance you can.
says the taliban chrisitian who supported the 9/11 terrorists because
they believed in god, and who supports the murder of gays...
>
>You give all atheist a bad name.
you do likewise to christians
>
Tim Norfolk
> On Nov 16, 6:16�pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 5:50 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
>
> > > Wanna prove me wrong ? Show me EVIDENCE of protests AGAINST
> > > school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers.
>
>
> > Americans United for Separation of Church and State, headed by a UCC
> > minister, Barry Lynn.
>
> Wonderful, even the Wikipedia article on them shows that they've made
> a few *speeches*... Which is good, but...
>
> So did Walter Mondale...
>
> school taught creationism coming from "reasonable" believers."
>
>
> Thank you for your concession... :-)
>
> Andre
AU has also filed many lawsuits, worked with school boards, etc. Look
them up, and read their newsletter.
Tim Norfolk
My friend, and other moderate members, had to leave the church that he
built becuase the incoming pastor was so right wing.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<9ae999d4-3a71-4be7...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:53:12 -0800 (PST), in article
>> <74b2adc0-f433-4fbb-8186-af8ed83e7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
>>>> reference to her views on evolution:
>>
>>>> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>>>> Memoir Is Palin=92s Payback to McCain Campaign
>>>> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>>>> Published: November 14, 2009
>>
>>>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>>>> =93didn=92t believe in the theory that human beings =97 thinking, loving
>>>> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>>>> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>>>> trees.=94
>>
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=3D1&pagewanted...
>>> 2...>
>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---Tom S.
>>>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is=
>>> due to
>>>> the currant jelly.
>>>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>>
>>> Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
>>> masses.
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for
>> creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
>>
>> Not in any of the "official" reasons.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is
>> due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
> What have the monkeys ever done for us?
>
Well, they're smarter than Palin, for one thing.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Desertphile
<jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > reference to her views on evolution:
> >
> > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > Memoir Is Palin’s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > Published: November 14, 2009
> >
> > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving
> > beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > trees.”
> >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
> Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
The America Treason Party ("Republicans") will probably nominate
an actual conservative in year 2012; if so, that will be a
refreshing change. Surely there must be at least one conservative
in the Republican Party.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:12 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > "On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:53:12 -0800 (PST), in article
> > <74b2adc0-f433-4fbb-8186-af8ed83e7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
> > stated..."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > >> reference to her views on evolution:
> >
> > >> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > >> Memoir Is Palin=92s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > >> Published: November 14, 2009
> >
> > >> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > >> =93didn=92t believe in the theory that human beings =97 thinking, loving
> > >> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > >> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > >> trees.=94
> >
> > >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=3D1&pagewanted...
> > >2...>
> >
> > >> --
> > >> ---Tom S.
> > >> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is=
> > > due to
> > >> the currant jelly.
> > >> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> >
> > >Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
> > >masses.
> >
> > >Ron Okimoto
> >
> > It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for
> > creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
> >
> > Not in any of the "official" reasons.
> What have the monkeys ever done for us?
Well, there's the aqueduct; and the roads.....
Walter Bushell
<bd2c3250-ba91-4240...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
John Bode <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:45�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > reference to her views on evolution:
> >
> > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > Memoir Is Palin�s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > Published: November 14, 2009
> >
> > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > �didn�t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
> > beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > of the sea� or from �monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > trees.�
> >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
> >
> > --
> > ---Tom S.
> > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is
> > due to
> > the currant jelly.
> > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
> Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
She might win.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
VoiceOfReason
> In article
> <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > > reference to her views on evolution:
>
> > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > > Memoir Is Palin¹s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > > Published: November 14, 2009
>
> > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > > ³didn¹t believe in the theory that human beings ‹ thinking, loving
> > > beings ‹ originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > > of the sea² or from ³monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > > trees.²
>
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
>
> > > --
> > > ---Tom S.
> > > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is
> > > due to
> > > the currant jelly.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
> > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>
> She might win.
LMAO! Wait 'til she goes head-to-head with other Republicans in the
primaries. She'll be eviscerated.
Burkhard
wrote:
what have monkeys to do with ducks?
Desertphile
Yes, but she's actually seen the Soviet Union from accross the
sea! That makes her qualified for the job. We should all just look
past the fact that she doesn't know evolution is an observed fact;
we should ignore the fact that her cult guru tried to murder a
woman and casts out demons from posessed women---- she's seen
another country!
--
Mark Isaak
> [snipped ACTUAL EXAMPLE of EXACTLY what Lieven asks for]
>
> Then, ALL that is needed to be done to show my claim to be in error is
> to PROVIDE ACTUAL EXAMPLES of EXACTLY the kinds of public
> demonstrations that I said aren't done by so called " reasonablle"
> religious people/groups.
You're right. There are no True Scotsmen doing such activity; in fact,
it would be logically impossible. This universe does not and physically
cannot allow the sort of examples you demand.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> So far, the whining notwithstanding, NO ONE can SHOW any EVIDENCE os
> that having been DONE by such so called "reasonable" believers.
>
> Until some such evidence IS presented, my point stads well confirmed.
Does contributing money to the NCSE count? Does *working* for the NCSE
count?
And then there's the very public statements by Jimmy Carter, plus the
full-time work by Barry Lynn.
Earle Jones
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:32:10 -0800 (PST), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:45�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > > reference to her views on evolution:
> > >
> > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > > Memoir Is Palin�s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > > Published: November 14, 2009
> > >
> > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > > �didn�t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
> > > beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > > of the sea� or from �monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > > trees.�
> > >
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
>
> > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>
> The America Treason Party ("Republicans") will probably nominate
> an actual conservative in year 2012; if so, that will be a
> refreshing change. Surely there must be at least one conservative
> in the Republican Party.
*
That's an interesting notion. The last 'true conservative' that comes
to mind was Barry Goldwater, whose nickname was "Mr. Conservative".
Regarding religion he said:
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others
unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion
has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views
known without trying to make their views the only alternatives...We
have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state
separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and
we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate
the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the
framers built this democratic republic."
--Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
It is indeed a strange time when Goldwater comes across as a breath of
fresh air.
earle
*
Earle Jones
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > And there was a possibility she could have been the US
> > President...
> >
> > Doesn't really sound right does it?
>
> Hardly worse than George W.,
> or the immortal Dan Quayle,
>
> Jan
*
You mean "Mr. Potatoe Head"?
earle
*
heekster
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 2:12�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:53:12 -0800 (PST), in article
>> <74b2adc0-f433-4fbb-8186-af8ed83e7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
>> stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 15, 1:45=A0pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
>> >> reference to her views on evolution:
>>
>> >> BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>> >> Memoir Is Palin=92s Payback to McCain Campaign
>> >> By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>> >> Published: November 14, 2009
>>
>> >> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>> >> =93didn=92t believe in the theory that human beings =97 thinking, loving
>> >> beings =97 originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>> >> of the sea=94 or from =93monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>> >> trees.=94
>>
>> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=3D1&pagewanted...
>> >2...>
>>
>> >> --
>> >> ---Tom S.
>> >> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is=
>> > due to
>> >> the currant jelly.
>> >> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>>
>> >Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
>> >masses.
>>
>> >Ron Okimoto
>>
>> It tends to confirm by belief that the real core of support for
>> creationism lies in the denial of our relationship with monkeys.
>>
>> Not in any of the "official" reasons.
>>
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
>What have the monkeys ever done for us?
>
Last Train to Clarksville?
John McKendry
I know it's [M]adman, but do you disagree with what he said? What
about the part you snipped, where he said
"Hey moron. Who do you think voted Obama in?
The vast majority that voted for Obama were people that believed in a
God or at least a creator. A large majority of liberals go to church.
Some of the Christian right obviously voted for him as well." ?
I thought it was a pretty damned good post.
John
VoiceOfReason
> In article <86i5g5desf7tt3f9llv3s6463q3ora9...@4ax.com>,
So true. And look at how prophetic his words have become, and what's
happened to his party. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking
ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to
take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a
religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics
goodbye."
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
Walter Bushell
<6fc9ec4a-cf7e-44d1...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:41�m, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > �ohn Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
As Himmler told the cute little girl, after getting her to say she would be 7 next
week, "Don't be too sure about that."
Walter Bushell
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:32:10 -0800 (PST), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:45�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > > reference to her views on evolution:
> > >
> > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > > Memoir Is Palin�s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > > Published: November 14, 2009
> > >
> > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > > �didn�t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
> > > beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > > of the sea� or from �monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > > trees.�
> > >
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
>
> > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>
> The America Treason Party ("Republicans") will probably nominate
> an actual conservative in year 2012; if so, that will be a
> refreshing change. Surely there must be at least one conservative
> in the Republican Party.
Does it matter; all the politicians work for the bosses anyway.
We would be better of with a monarch, who doesn't need money and hence
can consider the long term good of the country. Besides a monarchy is
better show biz.
John Bode
> In article
> <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:45 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > > reference to her views on evolution:
>
> > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > > Memoir Is Palin¹s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > > Published: November 14, 2009
>
> > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > > ³didn¹t believe in the theory that human beings ‹ thinking, loving
> > > beings ‹ originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > > of the sea² or from ³monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > > trees.²
>
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2...>
>
> > > --
> > > ---Tom S.
> > > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is
> > > due to
> > > the currant jelly.
> > > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>
> > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
> > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>
> She might win.
>
I'm willing to play the odds on that. Hell, *Newsweek's* making fun
of her now; can the rest of the MSM be far behind?
Yes, she inspires intense loyalty in a small segment of the
electorate, but that's not enough to win. She inspires intense
loathing in an equally small segment, and a hearty "meh" among the
voters she would need the most to win a general election. She has no
stomach for actually *governing*; she just wants to be on TV, and
that's becoming more clear as time goes on.
Personally, I would be *thrilled* if the GOP could come up with actual
*conservative* candidates in the next couple of elections; people who
are intelligent and rational, who make decisions based on real-world
facts and figures instead of some nebulous philosophy of how things
*ought* to be, who avoid military adventurism, who understand that
"fiscal responsibiliy" means more than cutting taxes, who honestly try
to limit the federal government's power instead of expanding it, who
believe the law is actually *important*, etc. Right now the Democrats
are having to play both sides of the table, and that's not going to be
viable for long. Tents can only get so big, after all.
Tim Norfolk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's dig up Eisenhower and have him run again.
John Wilkins
<fbfce655-9f52-445f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:20�am, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 10:41�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > �John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 15, 1:45�pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a brief
> > > > > reference to her views on evolution:
> >
> > > > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
> > > > > Memoir Is Palin1s Payback to McCain Campaign
> > > > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
> > > > > Published: November 14, 2009
> >
> > > > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
> > > > > 3didn1t believe in the theory that human beings � thinking, loving
> > > > > beings � originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
> > > > > of the sea2 or from 3monkeys who eventually swung down from the
> > > > > trees.2
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2.
We can't. He was buried by the military industrial complex, and they
lost the paperwork.
Louann Miller
news:74b2adc0-f433-4fbb...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>> Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>> "didn't believe in the theory that human beings - thinking, loving
>> beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>> of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>> trees."
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted=
> 2...>
> Could be the views of the ghost writer catering to the conservative
> masses.
I wouldn't trust the woman to take care of my dog for five minutes, but
still. Surely she's going to read the manuscript* even if it's all
ghostwritten and make them take out anything she strongly disagrees with.
Ghostwriters are paid employees, they expect that. If anything, her
flaky, heedless self-absorbtion would make her MORE likely to insist on
leaving out details that don't match her personal quirks.
* jokes about lips moving, sounding out words, slow completion of the
task, etc. are left for the reader's individual taste.
Mitchell Coffey
Why, after everything, are you willing to assume she's more than
skimmed the manuscript?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
OK, so I only skimmed your post. I notice you actually gave a reason
for thinking she more than skimmed the manuscript. And it's
compelling.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
An impressive number of churches have left the Southern Baptist
Convention because of they concluded that that organization is so
extreme it would no longer be possible to moderate it from within.
This movement has include two Former U.S. Presidents and their home
churches. Three if you count Al Gore.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
And perhaps only he could get away with breaking it to the country
about Afghanistan.
Mitchell Coffey
Walter Bushell
<9ff2fc4d-be04-4280...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
> personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
> not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
> as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
> any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
> denominations ?".
>
> Andre
They say they don't get press coverage when they do. "Dog bites man.",
versus "Man bites dog.".
Walter Bushell
<b524befc-eb02-494c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:31�m, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 9:20�m, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 17, 10:41�m, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > �ohn Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Truman, or Goldwater could I think. Perhaps, though we had best exhume George Washington,
just to be safe.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
He's under the goal post at Giants stadium.
VoiceOfReason
As self-absorbed as she is? I wouldn't be surprised if she sleeps
with it under her pillow.
Paul J Gans
>In article <191120090142016641%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <fbfce655-9f52-445f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 18, 9:20?am, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 17, 10:41?am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > In article
>> > > > <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > ?John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > On Nov 15, 1:45?pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a
>> > > > > > brief
>> > > > > > reference to her views on evolution:
>> > >
>> > > > > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>> > > > > > Memoir Is Palin1s Payback to McCain Campaign
>> > > > > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>> > > > > > Published: November 14, 2009
>> > >
>> > > > > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>> > > > > > 3didn1t believe in the theory that human beings ? thinking, loving
>> > > > > > beings ? originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>> > > > > > of the sea2 or from 3monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>> > > > > > trees.2
>> > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted
>> > > > > > =2.
>> > > > > > ..>
>> > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > ---Tom S.
>> > > > > > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail;
>> > > > > > it is
>> > > > > > due to
>> > > > > > the currant jelly.
>> > > > > > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>> > >
>> > > > > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
>> > > > > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>> > >
>> > > > She might win.
>> > >
>> > > I'm willing to play the odds on that. ?Hell, *Newsweek's* making fun
>> > > of her now; can the rest of the MSM be far behind?
>> > >
>> > > Yes, she inspires intense loyalty in a small segment of the
>> > > electorate, but that's not enough to win. ?She inspires intense
>> > > loathing in an equally small segment, and a hearty "meh" among the
>> > > voters she would need the most to win a general election. ?She has no
>> > > stomach for actually *governing*; she just wants to be on TV, and
>> > > that's becoming more clear as time goes on.
>> > >
>> > > Personally, I would be *thrilled* if the GOP could come up with actual
>> > > *conservative* candidates in the next couple of elections; people who
>> > > are intelligent and rational, who make decisions based on real-world
>> > > facts and figures instead of some nebulous philosophy of how things
>> > > *ought* to be, who avoid military adventurism, who understand that
>> > > "fiscal responsibiliy" means more than cutting taxes, who honestly try
>> > > to limit the federal government's power instead of expanding it, who
>> > > believe the law is actually *important*, etc. ?Right now the Democrats
>> > > are having to play both sides of the table, and that's not going to be
>> > > viable for long. ?Tents can only get so big, after all.- Hide quoted text
>> > > -
>> > >
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > Let's dig up Eisenhower and have him run again.
>> >
>> We can't. He was buried by the military industrial complex, and they
>> lost the paperwork.
>He's under the goal post at Giants stadium.
Isn't it getting crowded there?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
VoiceOfReason
Actually the SBC admitted several years ago that young people are
leaving the church in droves -- 88% by their own estimate.
==================
SBC Leader Alarmed Over Young Adults 'Dropping Out' of Churches
The new president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) says he is
disturbed that many students in both public and private schools --
even Christian private schools -- are leaving the church once they
graduate.
In 2002, the SBC's Council on Family Life reported that roughly 88
percent of evangelical children are leaving the church shortly after
they graduate from high school. ...
Some blame the church "drop-out rate" among young people after they
graduate on the secularist influence of America's public schools.
However, the SBC's president observes, "The sad thing is that we're
seeing that number of dropouts from church [among] those who went to
public school and private school, and that's an unfortunate
trend." ...
Paul J Gans
> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 9:31???m, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 18, 9:20???m, John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Nov 17, 10:41???m, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > In article
>> > > > <bd2c3250-ba91-4240-88e9-6d6827435...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > ???ohn Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > On Nov 15, 1:45???m, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > A New York Times book review of Sarah Palin's new book makes a
>> > > > > > brief
>> > > > > > reference to her views on evolution:
>> >
>> > > > > > BOOKS OF THE TIMES
>> > > > > > Memoir Is Palin??s Payback to McCain Campaign
>> > > > > > By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
>> > > > > > Published: November 14, 2009
>> >
>> > > > > > Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she
>> > > > > > ??didn??t believe in the theory that human beings ??? thinking,
>> > > > > > loving
>> > > > > > beings ??? originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out
>> > > > > > of the sea?? or from ??monkeys who eventually swung down from the
>> > > > > > trees.??
>> >
>> > > > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?_r=1&pagewanted
>> > > > > > =2...>
>> >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > ---Tom S.
>> > > > > > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail;
>> > > > > > it is
>> > > > > > due to
>> > > > > > the currant jelly.
>> > > > > > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
>> >
>> > > > > Please, please, please, please let this woman be the 2012 Republican
>> > > > > Presidential nominee; we need the laughs.
>> >
>> > > > She might win.
>> >
>> > > I'm willing to play the odds on that. ??Hell, *Newsweek's* making fun
>> > > of her now; can the rest of the MSM be far behind?
>> >
>> > > Yes, she inspires intense loyalty in a small segment of the
>> > > electorate, but that's not enough to win. ??She inspires intense
>> > > loathing in an equally small segment, and a hearty "meh" among the
>> > > voters she would need the most to win a general election. ??She has no
>> > > stomach for actually *governing*; she just wants to be on TV, and
>> > > that's becoming more clear as time goes on.
>> >
>> > > Personally, I would be *thrilled* if the GOP could come up with actual
>> > > *conservative* candidates in the next couple of elections; people who
>> > > are intelligent and rational, who make decisions based on real-world
>> > > facts and figures instead of some nebulous philosophy of how things
>> > > *ought* to be, who avoid military adventurism, who understand that
>> > > "fiscal responsibiliy" means more than cutting taxes, who honestly try
>> > > to limit the federal government's power instead of expanding it, who
>> > > believe the law is actually *important*, etc. ??Right now the Democrats
>> > > are having to play both sides of the table, and that's not going to be
>> > > viable for long. ??Tents can only get so big, after all.
>> >
>> > Let's dig up Eisenhower and have him run again.
>>
>> And perhaps only he could get away with breaking it to the country
>> about Afghanistan.
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>Truman, or Goldwater could I think. Perhaps, though we had best exhume George Washington,
>just to be safe.
You are dealing with matters of religion here. The Wingnut Wing
of the UltraRightGodlyFolks (WWURGF) KNOWS that sending Americans
to die in Afghanistan is the RIGHT thing to do. There is nothing
you can say that would convince them otherwise.
These are not well people. Their last mooring to reality was
severed when Americans elected Obama to be their president. They
are on a Godly Mission and it isn't going to end well at all.
Paul J Gans
>==================
>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/72006e.asp
Well then, we'll have to close the schools. They are clearly
doing the Devil's work.
Walter Bushell
<9f7037fc-f954-493b...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
They may return when they have children.
Louann Miller
@news.panix.com:
>> In 2002, the SBC's Council on Family Life reported that roughly 88
>> percent of evangelical children are leaving the church shortly after
>> they graduate from high school. ...
>> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/72006e.asp
>
> They may return when they have children.
They very well may. But those years to decades of not going to church would
still have an effect, on both them and their churches.
Mitchell Coffey
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article
I almost would prefer that Glen Beck is a vast right-wing in-joke
against liberals. Otherwise, these people really do think he's sane
and an intellectual.
Mitchell
Stuart
Didn't think Ike and Hoffa were all that close..
Stuart
bpuharic
wrote:
my point is that he supports osama bin laden. he's said so himself.
he's in a poor position to tell us how pissed he is when someone
criticizes the US.
>
>John
bpuharic
wrote:
>In article
><9ff2fc4d-be04-4280...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>...
>> Remember, I'm talking about statistical masses of people. If you,
>> personally, know ten moderate religious people, not only does that
>> not at all make a case that the majority of religious people are
>> as "nice" as them, but it should get you to ask them "Why aren't
>> any of YOU protesting the wingnutters who have taken over YOUR
>> denominations ?".
>
>I've heard this complaint a few times. The fact that the leadership of
>most denominations have in fact protested against the extremists in
>their churches, and that the official position of nearly all
>denominations have come out in favour of evolution seems to be
>overlooked by people who make this complaint.
that's a matter of perspective, conditioned by the fact the US is so
far to the right right now, that extremisim is almost moderate
example: the 2 largest american churches, that catholic and the
baptist, are on a rampage against gays. that's extremist, but no one
notices since, in america, being homophobic is 'moderate'.
and most american christians are all over the place on evolution. they
accept BOTH creationism AND evoution as science...
>
>It's rather like those bigots who rhetorically ask why moderate muslims
>don't protest against terrorism, when nearly all western based muslim
>organisations have done precisely that, which, if reported at all, is
>reported on page 43.
islam is not as moderate as chrsitianity is, which is saying alot.
Paul J Gans
But Glen Beck is not a vast right-wing in-joke and we are in
very bad trouble in the US. While I do not think it immanent,
I do think that we are closer to armed insurrection in the US
than at any time since the Great Depression.
Those folks are *serious* and we'd best take them seriously.