Creationism in which countries?
Therion Ware
I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
that's another story...).
Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
Your help welcome.
Thanks.
TW.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>
The alt.atheism twitlist. See: <http://www.twitlist.co.uk>
- there is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
catshark
Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>
> I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> that's another story...).
>
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>
> Your help welcome.
>
> Thanks.
> TW.
>
> --
Ronald Number's book "The Creationists", which is 10 years old, lists
other countries where "strict creationism" (i.e. YEC) is making inroads
as: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Because of the strategy that
they have developed, most of the political promotion is on the local
level (such as getting local school boards to include "equal treatment"
or at least "disclaimers" in science courses or influencing text book
purchases to limit discussion of evolution) and its hard to judge from
outside how strong the political movements are in those countries.
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Adam Marczyk
news:lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> that's another story...).
>
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
Australia has Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), and there was
that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
> Your help welcome.
>
> Thanks.
> TW.
>
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Cynical Prophet
>
> I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> that's another story...).
>
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA,
> is promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
Arabia?
--
Morgan
aa# 69
EAC surgeon in charge of opening your mind
Replace "my-deja" with "yahoo" to reply
Barney Gumble
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>
> Australia has Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), and there was
> that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political level", quite the
opposite.
clfr...@my-deja.com
Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
popular in Islamic countries as well.
In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
capable enough to be trusted with any really important
decision making.
That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
schools are a good thing.
--
Craig Franck
Dover, NH
Adam Marczyk
news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to push
creationism into schools if he had been elected.
Jason Spaceman
Didn't Day claim that creationism was just as much a science as evolution
and deserved to be mentioned in schools?
Zartregu
> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> that's another story...).
>
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>
> Your help welcome.
>
> Thanks.
> TW.
Here in France, it does not even appear on the radar screen. I could be
wrong, but I see a few reasons why it is so:
(*) French people have a keen sense of ridicule.
(*) Since the separation between church and state (early 1900's), the
churches have lost most polical and moral influence, and we like it
that way.
(*) Catholicism in in the majority. The catholic church has been burned
once in that sorry Galileo affair, and since then avoids any litteral
interpretation of the bible. Any priest straying from that line would
be duly sanctioned by his hierarchy.
In the few times I have seen creationism mentioned in the press, it was
used to poke fun at americans.
rich hammett
> In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
>> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
> Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> popular in Islamic countries as well.
I'm not sure I believe this. Maybe in the seminaries, which
have become very popular as they eliminate the need for army
service...
rich
> In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> decision making.
> That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> schools are a good thing.
> --
> Craig Franck
> Dover, NH
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
maff91
<tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>
>I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
>promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
>the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
>Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
>that's another story...).
>
>Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
>promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
http://www.newscientist.com/creationism/features_22352.html
http://www.geocities.com/fedor_steeman/#English
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=678461548
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=174
>
>Your help welcome.
>
>Thanks.
>TW.
--
Science Makes News (New York Times - November 1, 1999, Monday )
To the Editor: Your Oct. 29 news articles ''Biologists Find
Progenitors of Earth's Flowering Plants'' and ''Earliest Divorce Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-flower-evolution.html
X and Y Chromosomes'' show the difference between science and
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-sex-chromosome.html
creationism. Evolutionary scientists make news through the
scientific process, while creationists make news through the political
process."
http://www.nytimes.com/99/11/01/letters/l01bio.html
Meteorite Debris
did eloquently compose:
>
> I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> that's another story...).
>
> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
In Australia there are a couple of creationist groups but they have
little political impact on state school syllabi. The Creation Science
Foundation in Queensland is the most famous. Creationist schools do
receive funding from the state to "educate" their students and funding
has become more generous in recent years reflecting government policy
to increase funding to private schools in general and to starve state
schools. The same increased funding has benefited the Islamic, Hindu,
Hare Krishna and all sorts of other looney tune schools.
--
alt.atheism #1417 rot-13 on email reply
Head of the EAC Decryption Squad -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/eac.htm
"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." - Lucretius (99 - 55 B.C.E.)
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
Marko Grönroos
> In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> decision making.
If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
criteria in politics?
--
-- Marko Grönroos, ma...@iki.fi (http://www.iki.fi/magi/)
-- Paradoxes are the source of truth and the end of wisdom
Roger Schlafly
> clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
> ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> ? decision making.
> If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> criteria in politics?
Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
either.
wf...@ptd.net
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
he really wasnt smart enough to know whether he was a fundamentalist
or not.
Alan Barclay
Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>>
>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>>
>> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political level",
>quite the
>> opposite.
>
>Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to push
>creationism into schools if he had been elected.
But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
and...@my-deja.com
Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
a lame duck at this point.
When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
will be the cause for the delay.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA,
is
> > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>
> Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> popular in Islamic countries as well.
Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of the
countries of the world.
> In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> decision making.
There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
> That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> schools are a good thing.
There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated to
these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
have had mandatory evolution teaching.
Andy
Adam Marczyk
> In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
> > In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> > Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
> > >>
> > >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
> level",
> > >quite the
> > >> opposite.
> > >
> > >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
> push
> > >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
> >
> > But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
> > did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
>
> Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
> Canada.
Considering he _lost the election_, I think it's you who is engaging in
wishful thinking.
> His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
Yeah, by negative half a million votes. And if Bush is a creationist, he's
done a much better job keeping it quiet than Day did.
> The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
> a lame duck at this point.
>
> When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
> will be the cause for the delay.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
>> In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>> >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
>> >>
>> >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
>level",
>> >quite the
>> >> opposite.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
>push
>> >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
>>
>> But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
>> did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
>
>Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
>Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
day lost. and andy, who is fascinated by language the way a pre-toilet
trained toddler is fascinated diaper filling (he being an expert on
the latter), neglects to define 'beat'...bush lost the popular vote.
since when is a loser a winner?
>
>The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
>Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
>a lame duck at this point.
>
>When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
>will be the cause for the delay.
kinda like the idea that creationism is the theory of the future..and
always will be??
Adam Marczyk
> In article <93q6gh$r4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA,
> is
> > > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
> >
> > Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> > popular in Islamic countries as well.
>
> Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of the
> countries of the world.
Um, actually not. The entire point of this thread, which has slipped by you
as usual, is that creationism is almost exclusively a U.S. phenomenon.
> > In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > decision making.
>
> There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
> may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
> because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
You're making this up out of thin air.
> > That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> > inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> > schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> > should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> > historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> > schools are a good thing.
>
> There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated to
> these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
> viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
Uh-huh. Let's see the peaceful, prosperous countries in the world where
creationism is taught. Israel, right? I bet Afghanistan teaches it also.
Maybe Iran. Well, look at that.
> Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
> Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
> teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
> have had mandatory evolution teaching.
See. There _is_ a correlation between teaching evolution and intelligence.
> Andy
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
hrgr...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
> > In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> > Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
> > >>
> > >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
> level",
> > >quite the
> > >> opposite.
> > >
> > >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
> push
> > >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
> >
> > But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected.
Canadians
> > did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their
poltiics.
>
> Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
> Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
5:4, as I heard.
You know, in some countries elections for president are actually
decided by the majority of the voters, not of the justices. A
fascinating idea, isn't it ?
HRG.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <93q6gh$r4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
>> Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>> > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA,
>is
>> > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>>
>> Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
>> popular in Islamic countries as well.
>
>Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of the
>countries of the world.
so is fascism, or some other bizarre political belief. and there is no
proof the weizmann institute, hebrew university, etc, teach
creationism. so go ahead, andy...tell us how popular creationism is
when no university has a creationism dept.
>
>> In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
>> interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
>> capable enough to be trusted with any really important
>> decision making.
>
>There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
>may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
>because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
except creationists, being religious fanatics, are ALWAYS telling us
what they think, and attributing beliefs to others...e.g. calling
evolution a nazi belief...
>
>> That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
>> inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
>> schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
>> should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
>> historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
>> schools are a good thing.
>
>There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated to
>these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
>viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
>
>Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
>what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
>Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
>teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
>have had mandatory evolution teaching.
>
but gore won the election. and the folks in kansas who forced out
science were themselves defeated. so creationism is collapsing even on
its home turf, while NO university in the world has a creationism
dept. many have bio depts where evolution is taught...
and...@my-deja.com
Hmmmm. Well, in the U.S., the President is elected based on the rules
in place on Election Day. A procedure is provided for anyone who wants
to change the rules beforehand.
For those who accept the rules but then complain only after they lose,
Aesop's "sour grapes" Fable applies.
You see, in the U.S. we abide by "Rule of Law", not simple majority
rule.
and...@my-deja.com
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93t0bo$s28
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<...>
> > His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
>
> Yeah, by negative half a million votes. And if Bush is a creationist,
he's
> done a much better job keeping it quiet than Day did. <...>
In fact, GW Bush expressly declared that the jury is still out on
evolution. Gore would have made an issue of it if he thought it would
help him.
In fact, I think Gore even made some pro-creationist comments at one
point in the campaign, to the outrage of a few Leftists. If
interested, you can probably find it on the 'net.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <93t1qo$lbo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93t0bo$s28
>$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
><...>
>> > His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
>>
>> Yeah, by negative half a million votes. And if Bush is a creationist,
>he's
>> done a much better job keeping it quiet than Day did. <...>
>
>In fact, GW Bush expressly declared that the jury is still out on
>evolution.
yeah no one ever said he was very bright, or he wouldnt pander to the
far far right in america.
Meteorite Debris
dejanews.com> did eloquently compose:
I think he was fundy and he was mentally defective. Most likely the
early stages of the alzheimer disease he is now being treated for.
Cynical Prophet
> > > >
> > > > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
> > > >
> > > > True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
> > > > level", quite the opposite.
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
> > > push creationism into schools if he had been elected.
> >
> > But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected.
> > Canadians did not want to have a religious bent introduced into
> > their poltiics.
>
> Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
> Canada.
Not *enough* areas in Canada, seeing that he lost.
> His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
Only if "beat" is made to mean "narrowly selected by a biased supreme
court".
> The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
> he's a lame duck at this point.
In Andy's world, "creationism" equals "conservatism".
> When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
> will be the cause for the delay.
You misspelled "If".
--
Morgan
aa# 69
EAC surgeon in charge of opening your mind
Replace "my-deja" with "yahoo" to reply
Cynical Prophet
> clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the
> > > USA, is promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come
> > > to that.
> >
> > Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> > popular in Islamic countries as well.
>
> Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of
> the countries of the world.
"Meanwhile, outside Andy's imaginary world, life continued."
> > In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > decision making.
>
> There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
> may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
> because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
There's that creationist logic: Pure speculation about what the other
side thinks. The "tag line" is usually: "All these people believe in it
because the evidence is overwhelming". Notice the cause and the effect;
don't confuse them.
> > That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> > inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> > schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> > should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> > historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> > schools are a good thing.
>
> There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated to
> these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
> viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
I bet you're just dying to mention them.
> Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
> Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
> teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
> have had mandatory evolution teaching.
Wtf does the president election of the United States of America have to
do with creationism?
--
Morgan
aa# 69
EAC surgeon in charge of opening your mind
Replace "my-deja" with "yahoo" to reply
Adam Marczyk
Of course, you are not by any means accusing the Supreme Court of changing
the rules. After all, the only thing they did was make the non-binding
December 12 deadline binding, at 10 PM, on December 12.
> For those who accept the rules but then complain only after they lose,
> Aesop's "sour grapes" Fable applies.
You are, of course, aware that this is an excellent argument against
creationism?
> You see, in the U.S. we abide by "Rule of Law", not simple majority
> rule.
Exactly. Which is why creationism will never be taught in public schools.
> Andy
Adam Marczyk
news:93t7it$1nd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Surely you're not actually expecting there to be a logical thread connecting
Andy's arguments. Witness his latest bout of foot-in-mouth disease, where he
went from "Gould uses bad grammar" to "Gould doesn't really support
evolution, he's just doing it to be politically correct" as if the
connection were blindingly obvious.
Winston
creationist are totally pig ignorant about the nature of science. Most of
these individuals never take the time to learn any real science, they just
pretend it is a belief system. They tend to associate science with atheist.
This of course is totally false. Science says nothing about atheism or
theism for that matter.
It is scary that the education system in this country is failing us this
badly. When people can't distinguish between science and belief, then we
have a serious problem. I also noticed how ignorant they are about what
other countries teach. Israel, to the surprise of most religionist, is
mainly a secular nation. The only other nation that I know of that has any
political movement towards creationism is Australia. Let's keep fighting
these poor souls, and let's not let them get away with trying to infect the
minds of our school children.
Peace!
Winston
Cynical Prophet
> Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > Wtf does the president election of the United States of America
> > have to do with creationism?
>
> Surely you're not actually expecting there to be a logical thread
> connecting Andy's arguments. Witness his latest bout of foot-in-mouth
> disease, where he went from "Gould uses bad grammar" to "Gould
> doesn't really support evolution, he's just doing it to be
> politically correct" as if the connection were blindingly obvious.
I would, but I no longer have the time to read t.o. as well as a.a.
Last time I heard from Andy, he was ranting about evolution being in
error for not "dealing with the concepts of love and justice". I'm
amazed the guy gets permission to use the asylum's computer on such a
regular basis.
Cynical Prophet
(snip)
> Being an active participant in a DebunkCreation list,
A list for debunking creationists? Where do I sign up?
> I have noticed that creationist are totally pig ignorant about the
> nature of science. Most of these individuals never take the time to
> learn any real science, they just pretend it is a belief system.
> They tend to associate science with atheist.
> This of course is totally false. Science says nothing about atheism or
> theism for that matter.
You're preaching to the choir. I've discussed "creation science" with
more creationists than I care to remember.
> It is scary that the education system in this country is failing us
> this badly. When people can't distinguish between science and
> belief, then we have a serious problem.
This remind me of something I've written in another post:
What do you think will happen the day the fundies decide that because
the Babble doesn't mention atoms and electrons, they can't exist?
Creationists are good at making even a well-supported and straight-
forward theory like evolution seem inconsistent to the laymen; imagine
what they can do to light (*both* waves *and* particles), photons
(packets of energy. "how silly is that?"), electrons (like
macroevolution, never been observed), quantum levels ("say, what
prevents the electron from just being sucked into the nucleus?"), and
on and on... Then comes astrology and chemics.
Within generations, American students will be incabable of competing
with other countries. Europe has experienced its Dark Ages; now it's
America's turn.
> I also noticed how ignorant they are about what other countries
> teach. Israel, to the surprise of most religionist, is mainly a
> secular nation. The only other nation that I know of that has any
> political movement towards creationism is Australia. Let's keep
> fighting these poor souls, and let's not let them get away with
> trying to infect the minds of our school children.
Apart from your notion that there are is such concept as a "soul", I
agree completely :-)
--
Morgan
Stew Dean
pool:
>In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
>> In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>> >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
>> >>
>> >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
>level",
>> >quite the
>> >> opposite.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
>push
>> >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
>>
>> But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
>> did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
>
>Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
>Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
>
I don't think it was really 'beat' - more won the toss. There will be
increasing pressure on the US to wise up and drop the traditional knee
jerk kind of politics we see from the outside.
>The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
>Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
>a lame duck at this point.
>
>When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
>will be the cause for the delay.
I think this election is a good an incentive as any for anyone not to
follow the US model. Many European countries are much better models of
government - including the good ol' UK.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
lenny
> In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
> > In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> > Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> > >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
> > >>
> > >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
> level",
> > >quite the
> > >> opposite.
> > >
> > >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
> push
> > >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
> >
> > But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
> > did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
>
> Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
> Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
Stockwell Day did well only in western Canada, and only because his party is
a regional party capitalizing on western dissatisfaction with the power
wielded by central Canada. If the leader of the Alliance had come out as an
atheist he would likely have done just as well in western Canada and
wouldn't have crapped out in the rest of Canada.
> The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
> a lame duck at this point.
Oh really? Thanks largely to Stockwell Day's support of creationism, the
liberal majority is stronger than it was before the election--the third
majority in a row (few PMs have managed 3 majority governments in a row, and
I don't think any have had their majority grow even larger in the third
term). You don't know much about Canadian politics Andy.
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> > The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> > Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble; he's
> > a lame duck at this point.
>
> Oh really? Thanks largely to Stockwell Day's support of creationism, the
> liberal majority is stronger than it was before the election--the third
> majority in a row (few PMs have managed 3 majority governments in a row,
and
> I don't think any have had their majority grow even larger in the third
> term). You don't know much about Canadian politics Andy.
Well, the list of things Andy doesn't know much about is rather long
already, but I _think_ we might be able to fit one more thing on there.
[snip]
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> (snip)
> > > Wtf does the president election of the United States of America
> > > have to do with creationism?
> >
> > Surely you're not actually expecting there to be a logical thread
> > connecting Andy's arguments. Witness his latest bout of foot-in-mouth
> > disease, where he went from "Gould uses bad grammar" to "Gould
> > doesn't really support evolution, he's just doing it to be
> > politically correct" as if the connection were blindingly obvious.
>
> I would, but I no longer have the time to read t.o. as well as a.a.
> Last time I heard from Andy, he was ranting about evolution being in
> error for not "dealing with the concepts of love and justice". I'm
> amazed the guy gets permission to use the asylum's computer on such a
> regular basis.
rofl. Well, next to Pangborn, the asylum keepers probably figured he
couldn't be _that_ much worse.
Alan Barclay
> gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
>> In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>> >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
>> >>
>> >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
>level",
>> >quite the
>> >> opposite.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
>push
>> >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
>>
>> But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected. Canadians
>> did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their poltiics.
>
>Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas of
>Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
>
As others have pointed out, Day lost. I belive that he lost ground in
the Western provinces compared to the Reform Party, even thought the
Canadian Aliance Party was supposed to reunite the Right. Speaking
as a resident of Ontario, the most populus province, and the one which
must be won in order for a party to win the election, Day's religiously
inspired viewpoints on Creationism, abortion and other issues were the
most controversal part of the campaign, and I personally know of several
people who rejected him on this basis.
Boikat
>
> In article <93t1qo$lbo$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93t0bo$s28
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <...>
> > > His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
> >
> > Yeah, by negative half a million votes. And if Bush is a creationist,
> he's
> > done a much better job keeping it quiet than Day did. <...>
>
> In fact, GW Bush expressly declared that the jury is still out on
> evolution. Gore would have made an issue of it if he thought it would
> help him.
So, Bush does not have a background in biology.
Your point? (BTW, Bush, being a politician, would
do the same as Gore, if he had thought it would
have helped him.)
>
> In fact, I think Gore even made some pro-creationist comments at one
> point in the campaign, to the outrage of a few Leftists. If
> interested, you can probably find it on the 'net.
His comment was that creationism should be given
equal time. His handlers corrected him shortly
afterwards. And it was not "leftists" that
objected, it was people that knew more about the
subject than he did.
Boikat
clfr...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> what secular authorities tell them.
I think that is true for public education as a whole. I
don't see 'evolution training' as a special case.
--
Craig Franck
Dover, NH
and...@my-deja.com
Sounds like very wishful thinking. You could just as easily say that
Stockwell Day didn't win the entire election because central Canada
wanted to keep its power.
Regardless, Day routed his opponents in much of Canada.
> > The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> > Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
he's
> > a lame duck at this point.
>
> Oh really? Thanks largely to Stockwell Day's support of creationism,
the
> liberal majority is stronger than it was before the election--the
third
> majority in a row (few PMs have managed 3 majority governments in a
row, and
> I don't think any have had their majority grow even larger in the
third
> term). You don't know much about Canadian politics Andy.
Yeah, right. Chretien panics and calls an early election because he
sees the handwriting on the wall, wins based only on Canada's regional
voting and a smear campaign against Day, and is now a lame duck. So
it's more status quo for Canada for bit while longer.
> > When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only
question
> > will be the cause for the delay.
Didn't see your response to this one. When Canadians finally get the
conservative politics that Chretien postponed, they'll only regret that
it was delayed so long.
and...@my-deja.com
Each election in the US is more conservative than the previous one.
Gore ran as conservative campaign as possible, and still wasn't
conservative enough.
> >The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> >Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
he's
> >a lame duck at this point.
> >
> >When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
> >will be the cause for the delay.
>
> I think this election is a good an incentive as any for anyone not to
> follow the US model. Many European countries are much better models of
> government - including the good ol' UK.
Evidently investors, employers, immigrants, and scientific panels feel
otherwise -- witness the comparative currency performance,
unemployment, immigration patterns, and Nobel prize award winners.
The sooner Europe turns to conservative politics, the sooner it can
match or exceed the US peace, prosperity and achievement. Why are some
resisting this?
Jon Fleming
>Regardless, Day routed his opponents in much of Canada.
As Gore routed his opponent in much of the U.S. You may have noticed
that it doesn't matter; Gore lost. As did Day.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
rich hammett
And yet, you have appealed to the majority (in your world) of people
who wish to have fundy christian creationism taught in schools even
when it is against the Rule of Law as set forth in the US constitution.
rich
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
rich hammett
> On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500, Roger Schlafly
> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>"Marko Grönroos" wrote:
>>> clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
>>> ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
>>> ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
>>> ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
>>> ? decision making.
>>> If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
>>> presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
>>> criteria in politics?
>>
>>Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
>>either.
>>
> he really wasnt smart enough to know whether he was a fundamentalist
> or not.
I'm not sure of the basis or reason for these comments. I mean, does
calling Reagan names or calling Patty Ireland a stupid harpy prove any
point, or rest upon any evidence?
rich
redrum
says...
Black and white religions like Christianity appeal to the uneducated,
impoverished, and starving. I live two hours drive from Silicon Valley,
where a "cheap" studio apartment goes for $1200. Food here is incredibly
expensive, despite California being one of the world's major food
producing areas. A shirt goes for $40. With more and more people being
squeezed out of being able to live decently by the rise of the
information economy, expect fundamentalist Christianity to gain ground.
The same type of situation led to the decline of the old ways in the
Roman Empire and the rise of xianity there.
>
>> I also noticed how ignorant they are about what other countries
>> teach. Israel, to the surprise of most religionist, is mainly a
>> secular nation. The only other nation that I know of that has any
>> political movement towards creationism is Australia. Let's keep
>> fighting these poor souls, and let's not let them get away with
>> trying to infect the minds of our school children.
>
>Apart from your notion that there are is such concept as a "soul", I
>agree completely :-)
Britain and a few other European countries have creationist movements,
but they're completely marginalized, like Nazism in the US.
Israel has about 10% of its population that is ultraorthodox and
believes the bible to be the literal truth. That is still a lot less
than the 40%+ in the US who believe the bible to be the literal truth. I
wonder if Britain will give me and other atheists political asylum in a
couple years.
wf...@ptd.net
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>In talk.origins wf...@ptd.net allegedly wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500, Roger Schlafly
>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Marko Grönroos" wrote:
>>>> clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
>>>> ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
>>>> ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
>>>> ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
>>>> ? decision making.
>>>> If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
>>>> presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
>>>> criteria in politics?
>>>
>>>Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
>>>either.
>>>
>
>> he really wasnt smart enough to know whether he was a fundamentalist
>> or not.
>
>I'm not sure of the basis or reason for these comments. I mean, does
>calling Reagan names or calling Patty Ireland a stupid harpy prove any
>point, or rest upon any evidence?
>
>rich
its simply an observation. reagan played to the far right, but he was
divorced, and rarely took time for his children. not exactly what
james dobson thought constitutes a good, christian family.
rich hammett
> On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500 Roger Schlafly<roger_95073@my-
> dejanews.com> did eloquently compose:
>> "Marko Grönroos" wrote:
>> > clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
>> > ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
>> > ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
>> > ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
>> > ? decision making.
>> > If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
>> > presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
>> > criteria in politics?
>>
>> Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
>> either.
> I think he was fundy and he was mentally defective. Most likely the
> early stages of the alzheimer disease he is now being treated for.
He was absolutely not a fundie, although he did consort with them,
and he may have had some apocalyptic beliefs.
I also have seen no evidence that he was less mentally able than the
average politician. He certainly had political skills to equal the
liar from Hope.
Just to forestall the kneejerk response, I am far more in favor of
Clinton's policies than of Reagan's.
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Each election in the US is more conservative than the previous one.
>Gore ran as conservative campaign as possible, and still wasn't
>conservative enough.
really? bush is more conservative than reagan? thats gonna come as
news to just about everybody.
>
>
>The sooner Europe turns to conservative politics, the sooner it can
>match or exceed the US peace, prosperity and achievement. Why are some
>resisting this?
>
perhaps they value freedom.
patrick burke
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in message
news:t64ngdp...@corp.supernews.com...
Bitch,bitch, moan, moan, I know people in NYC who pay 2000 for a
studio apartment. Anyway I just must insert that your slam against
Christianity is unwarranted. Never confuse the idolatrous heresy of
fundamentalism with the true faith of Christianity. They have NOTHING to do
with one another. Fundamentalists are the lowest form of blasphemers around,
and the fact that they have managed to confuse their deceits with my faith
annoys me to no end.
> >
> >> I also noticed how ignorant they are about what other countries
> >> teach. Israel, to the surprise of most religionist, is mainly a
> >> secular nation. The only other nation that I know of that has any
> >> political movement towards creationism is Australia. Let's keep
> >> fighting these poor souls, and let's not let them get away with
> >> trying to infect the minds of our school children.
> >
> >Apart from your notion that there are is such concept as a "soul", I
> >agree completely :-)
>
> Britain and a few other European countries have creationist movements,
> but they're completely marginalized, like Nazism in the US.
Well we can hope then.
>
> Israel has about 10% of its population that is ultraorthodox and
> believes the bible to be the literal truth. That is still a lot less
> than the 40%+ in the US who believe the bible to be the literal truth. I
> wonder if Britain will give me and other atheists political asylum in a
> couple years.
Don't take those figures (from fundamentalists no doubt) to seriously.
Most people assume that saying the bible is not "the literal truth" is the
same as saying "God is a liar" and so deny it. Ask them "so you think God
ordered the killing of infants" and see how many maintain the bible is
"inerant". It is all in how the question is posed.
>
lenny
> > Stockwell Day did well only in western Canada, and only because his
> party is
> > a regional party capitalizing on western dissatisfaction with the
> power
> > wielded by central Canada. If the leader of the Alliance had come
> out as an
> > atheist he would likely have done just as well in western Canada and
> > wouldn't have crapped out in the rest of Canada.
>
> Sounds like very wishful thinking.
The only wishful thinking is yours. You don't appear to actually know
anything about politics in Canada, and you appear to have zero interest in
remedying that ignorance. Your analysis is simplistic, ill-informed and
just plain wrong.
>You could just as easily say that
> Stockwell Day didn't win the entire election because central Canada
> wanted to keep its power.
Stockwell Day lost because he appeals only to dissaffected westerners. He
didn't do much better than the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party in
Quebec), which is also a regional party with limited appeal.
> Regardless, Day routed his opponents in much of Canada.
Day did well only in the west, and there is absolutely no reason to believe
that that had anything at all to do with his views on religion or
creationism. He gained very little ground that wasn't already held by the
Reform Party before it changed its name to the Canadian Alliance and
annointed a new, bible-thumping leader. You don't know what you are talking
about.
> > > The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> > > Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
> he's
> > > a lame duck at this point.
> >
> > Oh really? Thanks largely to Stockwell Day's support of creationism,
> the
> > liberal majority is stronger than it was before the election--the
> third
> > majority in a row (few PMs have managed 3 majority governments in a
> row, and
> > I don't think any have had their majority grow even larger in the
> third
> > term). You don't know much about Canadian politics Andy.
>
> Yeah, right. Chretien panics and calls an early election because he
> sees the handwriting on the wall, wins based only on Canada's regional
> voting and a smear campaign against Day, and is now a lame duck. So
> it's more status quo for Canada for bit while longer.
Andy, you are just demonstrating how totally, mind-numbingly ignorant you
are of Canadian politics. Chretien called the election early for political
reasons--the timing of elections is, within reason, the privilege of the PM
and they all make the decision for political reasons. The fact that he won
a very large majority government--larger even than his first two majority
governments--is ample and convincing evidence that you are full of shit. If
you actually had even the foggiest notion of what is going on you would know
that, far from being a lame duck, Chretien has such a powerful mandate due
to his large majority that he could do almost anything he wants. In fact,
you have the facts ass-backwards as usual--Chretien's surprisingly large
majority is probably the result of dislike of Day rather than affection for
Chretien. People were so determined to keep Day from a position of power
that many abandoned the parties that they usually vote for (like the
Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats) and voted Liberal as a
strategic move. They weren't voting for Chretien , they were voting against
Day.
> > > When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only
> question
> > > will be the cause for the delay.
>
> Didn't see your response to this one. When Canadians finally get the
> conservative politics that Chretien postponed, they'll only regret that
> it was delayed so long.
I didn't respond because it was too stupid to bother with. If you actually
knew what you were talking about you would know that even our far right, the
Canadian Alliance, is to the left of your Democratic Party--even our
conservatives are pink by American standards. We had a conservative
government under Mulroney for several terms in the eighties and he was so
unpopular towards the end that 'pulling a Mulroney' has entered the language
as a phrase describing getting single digit approval ratings, and his party
was so devestated at the polls that they could literally hold their caucus
meetings in a phone booth (they were reduced to two seats in the House of
Commons).
Adam Marczyk
>
> > > Stockwell Day did well only in western Canada, and only because his
> > party is
> > > a regional party capitalizing on western dissatisfaction with the
> > power
> > > wielded by central Canada. If the leader of the Alliance had come
> > out as an
> > > atheist he would likely have done just as well in western Canada and
> > > wouldn't have crapped out in the rest of Canada.
> >
> > Sounds like very wishful thinking.
>
> The only wishful thinking is yours. You don't appear to actually know
> anything about politics in Canada, and you appear to have zero interest in
> remedying that ignorance. Your analysis is simplistic, ill-informed and
> just plain wrong.
Lenny, meet Andy.
[further demonstrations of Andy's ignorance snipped]
Tim274
>....quantum levels ("say, what
>prevents the electron from just being sucked into the nucleus?"), and
>on and on...
I believe that I just read an article in Playboy, describing a medical doctor
(Randell Mills) who formed a company (Blacklight) and got at least one patent,
based on the idea that they could force hydrogen atoms into a state below the
lowest energy, and thus get free energy.
As far as I can see, the level of actual science knowledge in the U.S.A., even
among the college-educated, is now pitifully low.
Tim274
Meteorite Debris
hammett<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> did eloquently compose:
> In talk.origins Meteorite Debris <zrgr...@qvatboyhr.arg.nh.rot13> allegedly wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500 Roger Schlafly<roger_95073@my-
> > dejanews.com> did eloquently compose:
>
> >> "Marko Grönroos" wrote:
> >> > clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
> >> > ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> >> > ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> >> > ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> >> > ? decision making.
> >> > If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> >> > presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> >> > criteria in politics?
> >>
> >> Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
> >> either.
>
> > I think he was fundy and he was mentally defective. Most likely the
> > early stages of the alzheimer disease he is now being treated for.
>
> He was absolutely not a fundie, although he did consort with them,
> and he may have had some apocalyptic beliefs.
Well he may have been a hypocrite. But The Scientist at
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1997/may/prof_970512.html makes this
comment. Creationists are almost always fundys.
<quote>
Many nonscientists, including former President Ronald Reagan, have
dismissed evolution as "just a theory." To correct this view, many
professors suggest that a good starting point for classroom discussion
of evolution is to define a theory.
</quote>
And this at http://www.ifas.org/fw/9611/peace.html
<quote>
In Prophecy and Politics, author Grace Halsell describes
the influence of Armageddon theology on Ronald Reagan. She quotes
James Mill (former president pro tem of the California State Senate)
who said of Reagan, "Certainly his attitudes relative to military
spending, and his coolness to all proposals for nuclear disarmament,
are consistent with such apocalyptic views. Armageddon, as foreseen in
the books of Ezekiel and Revelation, cannot take place in a world that
has been disarmed. Anyone who believes it will come to pass cannot
expect that disarmament will ever come about. It is contrary to God's
plan as set forth in His word."
Mills continued, "The President's domestic and monetary polities, too,
are in harmony with a literal interpretation of biblical prophecies.
There is no reason to get wrought up about the national debt if God is
soon going to foreclose on the whole world." Reagan's support of his
Interior Secretary James Watt "makes sense if seen in that way, too.
Why be concerned about conservation? Why waste time and money
preserving things for future generations when everything is going to
come to a fiery end with this one?"
</quote>
This all smells of fundyism to me.
> I also have seen no evidence that he was less mentally able than the
> average politician. He certainly had political skills to equal the
> liar from Hope.
I will not say anything about the skills of the average politician who
is little more than a puppet of party donors. But former staffers like
Don Regan tell of a president who was slow and uninvolved, who needed
his naps and had poor attention span during meetings. He also confused
a film character with real life. Many decisions were made on the basis
of Nancy's astrologer. Like the decision to negotiate an arm's treaty
with the former USSR. That may or may not have been a good idea anyway
but to do so because Nancy's astrologer thought the time was right
does not inspire confidence in the intellectual ability of the man.
All of this may have been the onset of the early stages alzheimer
disease.
> Just to forestall the kneejerk response, I am far more in favor of
> Clinton's policies than of Reagan's.
I see Clinton as being too far to the right just like all the others.
--
alt.atheism #1417 rot-13 on email reply
Head of the EAC Decryption Squad -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/eac.htm
"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." - Lucretius (99 - 55 B.C.E.)
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
Mike Haubrich
<clfr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93tkgf$bvb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <93t1d5$su9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> > what secular authorities tell them.
>
> I think that is true for public education as a whole. I
> don't see 'evolution training' as a special case.
It's hard enough getting kids interested in school without telling them that
when they get to the Origins of the species that they should ignore
everything they have been taught so far in biology class because the Bible
says otherwise.
I'm an atheist but I sympathize with Patrick Burke - his religion has been
distorted to no end by the fundamentalists, and so Christians get painted
with a broad "stupidity" brush. While I don't accept their religion I know
many very intelligent Christians.
Adam Marczyk
news:JRt86.4548$Ep3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]
> > Israel has about 10% of its population that is ultraorthodox and
> > believes the bible to be the literal truth. That is still a lot less
> > than the 40%+ in the US who believe the bible to be the literal truth. I
> > wonder if Britain will give me and other atheists political asylum in a
> > couple years.
>
> Don't take those figures (from fundamentalists no doubt) to
seriously.
> Most people assume that saying the bible is not "the literal truth" is the
> same as saying "God is a liar" and so deny it. Ask them "so you think God
> ordered the killing of infants" and see how many maintain the bible is
> "inerant". It is all in how the question is posed.
Your average fundy has no problem with that. To them, nothing can be wrong
if God ordered it. I'm currently having a debate with a Christian associate
of mine over that very topic.
The Great Hairy One
> Australia has Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), and there was
> that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
Answers in Genesis have no political clout here. I'd be surprised if any
political party here had overt views in favour of creationism,
especially as most of our politicians keep their religious views pretty
private.
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA
====================================
I have to use Win2000??? Kill me now!
- The Great Hairy
(Remove spam block to email)
iran_c...@my-deja.com
have a problem with science, which is why during the European dark
ages, the Moslems were the scientist.
In article <93t27n$um8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93t1d5$su9
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <93q6gh$r4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> > > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > > > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the
USA,
> > is
> > > > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to
that.
> > >
> > > Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> > > popular in Islamic countries as well.
> >
> > Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of
the
> > countries of the world.
>
> Um, actually not. The entire point of this thread, which has slipped
by you
> as usual, is that creationism is almost exclusively a U.S. phenomenon.
>
> > > In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > > interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > > capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > > decision making.
> >
> > There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
> > may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
> > because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
>
> You're making this up out of thin air.
>
> > > That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> > > inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> > > schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> > > should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> > > historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> > > schools are a good thing.
> >
> > There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated
to
> > these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
> > viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
>
> Uh-huh. Let's see the peaceful, prosperous countries in the world
where
> creationism is taught. Israel, right? I bet Afghanistan teaches it
also.
> Maybe Iran. Well, look at that.
>
> > Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> > what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
> > Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
> > teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
> > have had mandatory evolution teaching.
>
> See. There _is_ a correlation between teaching evolution and
intelligence.
>
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
> >
>
> --
> When I am dreaming,
> I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
> When I get up,
> I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
> --Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
>
> To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
>
>
Soro
Zartregu <zo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93qj9f$50k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...> > I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
> > promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
> > the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
> > Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
> > that's another story...).
> >
> > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
> > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> > TW.
>
> Here in France, it does not even appear on the radar screen. I could be
> wrong, but I see a few reasons why it is so:
>
> (*) French people have a keen sense of ridicule.
>
> (*) Since the separation between church and state (early 1900's), the
> churches have lost most polical and moral influence, and we like it
> that way.
>
> (*) Catholicism in in the majority. The catholic church has been burned
> once in that sorry Galileo affair, and since then avoids any litteral
> interpretation of the bible. Any priest straying from that line would
> be duly sanctioned by his hierarchy.
>
> In the few times I have seen creationism mentioned in the press, it was
> used to poke fun at americans.
>
Excellent point.
I think the USA Fundy movement has more to do with the religious lunatics
they booted out of Europe that settled in the US than anything else. I fully
agree that extreme Xtian Fundamentalism is an almost 100% USA based thing,
comes from excellent propoganda, insularism and a general pig-headed refusal
to accept the facts that are staring you in the face. Actually, come to
think of it, it's not just Fundy Xtianity either, you can add Survivalism,
UFO-ology, New Age mumbo jumbo and "The UN is trying to take us all over,
seeing as that pesky Ruskie Evil Empire (tm) isn't around anymore" Lets face
it, the vast majority of the discussions here are sane Americans "debating"
fundamentalist loony Americans...... I really don't see any of this being a
pressing issue (or even debated seriously) outside the USA.
I wonder what the Hindus make of it all ?.. lol
Oh, and yes, Ronald 'Raygun' was a few beers short of a sixpack imho, what
made it worse was those awful Soviets didn't even have the decency to all
wear black stetsons so they could easily be identified as the bad guys.
Giddyup!
Adam Marczyk
news:93u7ks$q3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Creationism is NOT taught in Iran. Unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't
> have a problem with science, which is why during the European dark
> ages, the Moslems were the scientist.
I apologize for assuming. But Iran is still controlled by a rather
conservative Islamic theocracy, is it not? If creationism isn't taught
there, that seems to me like it would be an ideal place for it to breed.
[snip]
Adam Marczyk
uninformed assertion that "creationism is taught in most countries," versus
postings by people who actually live in those countries all telling us that
creationism is practically unknown outside the U.S., even in conservative
theocratic states such as Iran. If this is the typical level of rigor and
fact-checking he applies to his other anti-evolutionary posts, I think we'd
be quite safe in dismissing him (but you knew that).
Soro <So...@soro.com> wrote in message
news:gzx86.62529$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
--
Neil Jones
"Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "Cynical Prophet" <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:93t7it$1nd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the
> > > > > USA, is promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise,
come
> > > > > to that.
> > > >
> > > > popular in Islamic countries as well.
> > >
> > > Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most
of
> > > the countries of the world.
> >
> >
> > > > In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > > > interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > > > capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > > > decision making.
> > >
> > > There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
> > > may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe
it
> > > because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
> >
other
> > side thinks. The "tag line" is usually: "All these people believe
in it
> > because the evidence is overwhelming". Notice the cause and the
effect;
> > don't confuse them.
> >
> > > > That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> > > > inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> > > > schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> > > > should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> > > > historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> > > > schools are a good thing.
> > >
> > > There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is
correlated to
> > > these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
> > > viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
> >
> >
> > > Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs
on
> > > what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
> > > Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
> > > teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states
that
> > > have had mandatory evolution teaching.
> >
have to
> > do with creationism?
> >
> > --
> > Morgan
> >
> Being an active participant in a DebunkCreation list,
Please let me know more!
I have noticed that
> creationist are totally pig ignorant about the nature of science.
Absolutely.
Most of
> these individuals never take the time to learn any real science, they
just
> pretend it is a belief system. They tend to associate science with
atheist.
> This of course is totally false. Science says nothing about atheism or
> theism for that matter.
Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
that you are entirely wrong. However literal absolute belief in a faith
is incompatible with the ideas of logic and disprovability in science.
> It is scary that the education system in this country is failing us
this
> badly. When people can't distinguish between science and belief,
then we
> have a serious problem. I also noticed how ignorant they are about
what
> other countries teach. Israel, to the surprise of most religionist,
is
> mainly a secular nation. The only other nation that I know of that
has any
> political movement towards creationism is Australia. Let's keep
fighting
> these poor souls, and let's not let them get away with trying to
infect the
> minds of our school children.
Yes. It is shrinking of the minds to adopt a "mentalfundalist" position.
>
> Peace!
> Winston
> > aa# 69
--
Neil Jones- Ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve
Neil Jones
rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
> In talk.origins Meteorite Debris <zrgr...@qvatboyhr.arg.nh.rot13>
allegedly wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500 Roger Schlafly<roger_95073@my-
> > dejanews.com> did eloquently compose:
>
> >> "Marko Grönroos" wrote:
> >> > clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
> >> > ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> >> > ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> >> > ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> >> > ? decision making.
> >> > If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> >> > presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> >> > criteria in politics?
> >>
> >> Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
> >> either.
>
> > I think he was fundy and he was mentally defective. Most likely the
> > early stages of the alzheimer disease he is now being treated for.
>
> He was absolutely not a fundie, although he did consort with them,
> and he may have had some apocalyptic beliefs.
>
> I also have seen no evidence that he was less mentally able than the
> average politician. He certainly had political skills to equal the
> liar from Hope.
Certainly being as right wing as Reagan is dangereous because of the
side effects. He would have appointed similar people who were more
inclined to be fundies.
As to evidence of his senility while in office. He was widely believed
to be so in the UK from his general behaviour. He was notorious for his
bad memory. He once called Princess Diana, Princess David!
A comedy series in Britain even did a series of sketches entitled
"The president's brain is missing".
Then there are the stupid comments like the one about trees being the
biggest cause of pollution.
ghos...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The sooner Europe turns to conservative politics, the sooner it can
> match or exceed the US peace, prosperity and achievement. Why are
some
> resisting this?
Because your premise is faulty?
thewilkins
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
> > Australia has Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), and there was
> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
>
> Answers in Genesis have no political clout here. I'd be surprised if any
> political party here had overt views in favour of creationism,
> especially as most of our politicians keep their religious views pretty
> private.
Although a goodly number of politicians make much of their religious
affiliations - the PM John Howard is, I think, a methodist, the
Treasurer, Peter Costello, a baptist (at least he was when I knew him),
and the leader of the labour opposition, Kim Beazley is also a church
goer, but I don't know the denomination) - none of them have ever
commented on evolution or creationism, and apart from the (Dutch Reform)
Joh Bjeke Petersen who ran a corrupt Queensland for 20-odd years, no
government ever has.
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Cynical Prophet
> > > Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many
> > > areas of Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in
> > > the U.S.
> >
> > I don't think it was really 'beat' - more won the toss. There will
> > be increasing pressure on the US to wise up and drop the
> > traditional knee jerk kind of politics we see from the outside.
>
> Each election in the US is more conservative than the previous one.
Only if you limit "each election" to the two Clinton's and BabyBush.
> Gore ran as conservative campaign as possible, and still wasn't
> conservative enough.
Not for the supreme court, no. The people had another opinion.
> > > The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
> > > Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
> > > he's a lame duck at this point.
> > >
> > > When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only
> > > question will be the cause for the delay.
> >
> > I think this election is a good an incentive as any for anyone not
> > to follow the US model. Many European countries are much better
> > models of government - including the good ol' UK.
>
> Evidently investors, employers, immigrants, and scientific panels feel
> otherwise -- witness the comparative currency performance,
> unemployment, immigration patterns, and Nobel prize award winners.
I would love to. When are you citing your sources? I'm especially
looking forward to the many creationist Nobel prize winners you're
going to present.
--
Morgan
aa# 69
EAC surgeon in charge of opening your mind
Replace "my-deja" with "yahoo" to reply
Cynical Prophet
> "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > Most of these individuals never take the time to learn any real
> > science, they just pretend it is a belief system. They tend to
> > associate science with atheist. This of course is totally false.
> > Science says nothing about atheism or theism for that matter.
>
> Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
> that you are entirely wrong.
Science is to observe the observable and testing the testable. By
definition, God is neither. Studying the natural world with science
says as much about the existence (or lack of same) of God as a study of
Shakespeare in English says something about the temperature in
Greenland. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
(snip rest)
--
Morgan
aa# 69
EAC surgeon in charge of opening your mind
Replace "my-deja" with "yahoo" to reply
Dave O'Neill
> > I think this election is a good an incentive as any for anyone not to
> > follow the US model. Many European countries are much better models of
> > government - including the good ol' UK.
>
> Evidently investors, employers, immigrants, and scientific panels feel
> otherwise -- witness the comparative currency performance,
> unemployment, immigration patterns, and Nobel prize award winners.
Hmmm... given that the US is currently in a period of economic uncertainty
and an old socialist stallwart like France is currently the fastest growing
economy in the western world, I'd have to take your argument with a pinch of
salt.
I also recall that if you look at nobel prizes as a percentage per head of
population then the UK wins. (I may be wrong about this)
>
> The sooner Europe turns to conservative politics, the sooner it can
> match or exceed the US peace, prosperity and achievement. Why are some
> resisting this?
Generally speaking because people are reluctant to risk the social strife
which "rightist" politics would bring. Nor do I care for a lurch towards
religion in a big way.
Cheers,
Dave
maff91
<cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>> Being an active participant in a DebunkCreation list,
>
>A list for debunking creationists? Where do I sign up?
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/DebunkCreation
[...]
--
Science Makes News (New York Times - November 1, 1999, Monday )
To the Editor: Your Oct. 29 news articles ''Biologists Find
Progenitors of Earth's Flowering Plants'' and ''Earliest Divorce Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-flower-evolution.html
X and Y Chromosomes'' show the difference between science and
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-sex-chromosome.html
creationism. Evolutionary scientists make news through the
scientific process, while creationists make news through the political
process."
http://www.nytimes.com/99/11/01/letters/l01bio.html
maff91
>Creationism is NOT taught in Iran. Unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't
>have a problem with science, which is why during the European dark
>ages, the Moslems were the scientist.
So why did the fundamentalists persecute Averroes in the 12th century?
>
[...]
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=191.1
maff91
>In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>>
>> I'm from the UK. While we have a few lunatic fringe elements here who
>> promote it, they've never really gained any political pull (excluding
>> the brief interlude when they promoted belief in the Satanic Ritual
>> Abuse Myth, and then got their heads nailed to the the table, but
>> that's another story...).
>>
>> Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the USA, is
>> promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to that.
>>
>> Your help welcome.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> TW.
>
>Here in France, it does not even appear on the radar screen. I could be
>wrong, but I see a few reasons why it is so:
>
>(*) French people have a keen sense of ridicule.
>
>(*) Since the separation between church and state (early 1900's), the
>churches have lost most polical and moral influence, and we like it
>that way.
>
>(*) Catholicism in in the majority. The catholic church has been burned
>once in that sorry Galileo affair, and since then avoids any litteral
>interpretation of the bible. Any priest straying from that line would
>be duly sanctioned by his hierarchy.
>
>In the few times I have seen creationism mentioned in the press, it was
>used to poke fun at americans.
That's why Behe can't even get the Pontifical Academy of sciences to
agree with him.
Cynical Prophet
> Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Being an active participant in a DebunkCreation list,
> >
> > A list for debunking creationists? Where do I sign up?
>
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/DebunkCreation
Thankya!
Winston
"Neil Jones" <ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:93uc9e$u9g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <o3q86.10003$B6.20...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>,
> "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Cynical Prophet" <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:93t7it$1nd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > > > > >
> Most of
> > these individuals never take the time to learn any real science, they
> just
> > pretend it is a belief system. They tend to associate science with
> atheist.
> > This of course is totally false. Science says nothing about atheism or
> > theism for that matter.
>
> Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
> that you are entirely wrong. However literal absolute belief in a faith
> is incompatible with the ideas of logic and disprovability in science.
I'm simply saying that sometimes we (assuming you are) atheists claim that
science proves the non-existence of god. It of course does no such thing,
any more than it can prove the existence of god. You are of course correct
in saying that absolute literal faith is illogical. However, just to be
fair, science cannot disprove faith (or what the faithful believe if you
prefer), perhaps even the illogical type, which I believe is all types of
faith. It wasn't easy for me to come to this conclusion, but I think it is
correct.
Peace
Winston
<snip>
maff91
>In article <3a623d91...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2001 14:57:47 -0500, and...@my-deja.com added to the meme
>> pool:
>>
>> >In article <97949508...@elaine.furryape.com>,
>> > gor...@elaine.furryape.com (Alan Barclay) wrote:
>> >> In article <93qah3$bv0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>> >> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> >Barney Gumble <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:Ps086.143136$59.39...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:93q30m$13eq$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>> >> >> > that Stockwell Day fiasco in Canada a while back.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> True, but Day's beliefs weren't "promoted on a visible political
>> >level",
>> >> >quite the
>> >> >> opposite.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps, but I have difficulty believing he wouldn't have tried to
>> >push
>> >> >creationism into schools if he had been elected.
>> >>
>> >> But this is one of the reasons why his party wasn't elected.
>Canadians
>> >> did not want to have a religious bent introduced into their
>poltiics.
>> >
>> >Wishful thinking. Stockwell Day routed his opponents in many areas
>of
>> >Canada. His ideological cousin, GW Bush, beat Gore in the U.S.
>> >
>> I don't think it was really 'beat' - more won the toss. There will be
>> increasing pressure on the US to wise up and drop the traditional knee
>> jerk kind of politics we see from the outside.
>
>Each election in the US is more conservative than the previous one.
>Gore ran as conservative campaign as possible, and still wasn't
>conservative enough.
>
>> >The liberal Old Guard won't stay in power in Canada indefinitely.
>> >Chretien called early elections because he knew he was in trouble;
>he's
>> >a lame duck at this point.
>> >
>> >When Canada finally does embrace US-style politics, the only question
>> >will be the cause for the delay.
>>
>> I think this election is a good an incentive as any for anyone not to
>> follow the US model. Many European countries are much better models of
>> government - including the good ol' UK.
>
>Evidently investors, employers, immigrants, and scientific panels feel
>otherwise -- witness the comparative currency performance,
>unemployment, immigration patterns, and Nobel prize award winners.
Nobel laureates are from cities and University towns.
>
>The sooner Europe turns to conservative politics, the sooner it can
>match or exceed the US peace, prosperity and achievement. Why are some
>resisting this?
Have you ever seen a creationist who is a Nobel laureate in science?
>
>Andy
Kansans Electing Board of Education
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=177.1 -
Practical applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=138.1 -
The Road to Riches
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages/?msg=90.1 -
Enemies of Science & Knowledge
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages/?msg=126.1 -
VanArsdale
>
> "Marko Grönroos" wrote:
> > clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
> > ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > ? decision making.
> > If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> > presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> > criteria in politics?
>
> Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
> either.
I agree that religion was not very significant to Reagan, and it would
not be fair to label him a fundamentalist. But he was vulnerable
to fundamentalist thinking. For example, after a meeting with
Jerry Falwell he made a statement to reporters implying that
evolution was not true. He supported this by saying that many
scientists now feel the same way. At another time he stated
that the end of the world may be near, accompanied by the return
of Christ as "prophesized in the Bible." It is difficult to
say if these statements were typical political pretenses to garner
fundamentalist support, or were serious opinions of his. I
believe the latter, since Reagan, though glib, was not
much at thinking things out, nor did he know history.
Recall that after a summit meeting with Gorbashev in Iceland he
walked out and pronounced that the cold war was over. His
advisers were stunned and he soon issued a retraction.
(A conservative fantasy revision of this summit has Reagan
staring down Gorbashev.) It was a few more years before the cold
war really ended during the Bush administration. It was not
that Reagan was prophetic. Apparently what had happened was that,
without his advisers present, Gorbashev persuaded him on this.
Likewise, years before, Falwell had probably simply sold
Reagan a line on evolution and Reagan was fooled. All this
points to the importance of a president being well educated
(at least self educated). Reagan was not, nor is Bush.
Reagan was thus dominated by his advisers, as Bush appears
to be. For example, Cheney appointed himself vice president.
patrick burke
> patrick burke <pat.jam...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:JRt86.4548$Ep3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Israel has about 10% of its population that is ultraorthodox and
> > > believes the bible to be the literal truth. That is still a lot less
> > > than the 40%+ in the US who believe the bible to be the literal truth.
I
> > > wonder if Britain will give me and other atheists political asylum in
a
> > > couple years.
> >
> > Don't take those figures (from fundamentalists no doubt) to
> seriously.
> > Most people assume that saying the bible is not "the literal truth" is
the
> > same as saying "God is a liar" and so deny it. Ask them "so you think
God
> > ordered the killing of infants" and see how many maintain the bible is
> > "inerant". It is all in how the question is posed.
>
> Your average fundy has no problem with that. To them, nothing can be wrong
> if God ordered it. I'm currently having a debate with a Christian
associate
> of mine over that very topic.
Which was my point. The question will distinguish unthinking Christians
from blaspheming fundies.
Aleister Crowley's Cat
<david.o'nei...@vXrgXn.net> scribed:
Please don't confuse the nutcase policies of the Religious Right and
people like Andy with genuine conservatives such as myself.
Regards,
Dave
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/DebunkCreation
Jonathan Stone
patrick burke <pat.jam...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Bitch,bitch, moan, moan, I know people in NYC who pay 2000 for a
>studio apartment.
Do you know people two hours drive from NYC paying that for a studio?
[...]
> Don't take those figures (from fundamentalists no doubt) to seriously.
>Most people assume that saying the bible is not "the literal truth" is the
>same as saying "God is a liar" and so deny it. Ask them "so you think God
>ordered the killing of infants" and see how many maintain the bible is
>"inerant". It is all in how the question is posed.
I think it's more that humans aren't really very good at consistency.
David C. Fritzinger
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> "Marko Grönroos" wrote:
> > clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
> > ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > ? decision making.
> > If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> > presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> > criteria in politics?
>
> Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
> either.
No, he just pandered to the conservative religious right. And, he rarely
went to church. Yet they loved him. Must not be the religion, must be
the pandering.
Dave Fritzinger
Jonathan Stone
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Marko Grönroos" wrote:
>> clfr...@my-deja.com writes:
>> ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
>> ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
>> ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
>> ? decision making.
>> If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
>> presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
>> criteria in politics?
>
>Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
>either.
The evidence suggests fairly strongly that Reagan was suffering from
the early stages of Alzheimer's, for which Reagan is now being treated.
The effects of Alzheimer's were previously known as "senile dementia".
Whatever one may think of Reagan, the odds are very good that when he
told Congress he realy couldn't remember what he'd said to Ollie North,
he was telling the truth.
Not that an ideologue like Roger will acknowledge it.
Jonathan Stone
Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Neil Jones <ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>> > Most of these individuals never take the time to learn any real
>> > science, they just pretend it is a belief system. They tend to
>> > associate science with atheist. This of course is totally false.
>> > Science says nothing about atheism or theism for that matter.
>>
>> Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
>> that you are entirely wrong.
>
>Science is to observe the observable and testing the testable. By
>definition, God is neither. Studying the natural world with science
>says as much about the existence (or lack of same) of God as a study of
>Shakespeare in English says something about the temperature in
>Greenland. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
Nonsense. If God has any effect on the natural world, that effect
is subject to examination via the scientific method. (I've
mentioned several examples in t.o.).
No such effects have ever been found.
This rules out any conceptions of a "God" which takes an
active role in the natural world -- a popular viewpoint for most
of the history of Christianity.
Jonathan Stone
rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>In talk.origins wf...@ptd.net allegedly wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2001 11:50:29 -0500, Roger Schlafly
>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure of the basis or reason for these comments. I mean, does
>calling Reagan names or calling Patty Ireland a stupid harpy prove any
>point, or rest upon any evidence?
That depends. Is there medical evidence that Patty Ireland has
below-average intellligence, or is being treated for possessing avian
characteristics, or that when campainging for public office,
she mistook her earlier wartime propaganda-movie roles for actual combat
experience?
Howard Hershey
He also was unable to remember the name of the only black member of
his Cabinet (as am I right now, but he isn't the only black member of
my cabinet). I remember it was a humorous joke at the time. Now, of
course, it rings as an early indicator. That is why I don't worry too
much about Dubya's famed intellectual deficits. If we can survive a
president suffering senility ....
Roger Schlafly
> >> ? In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> >> ? interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> >> ? capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> >> ? decision making.
> >> If a demented fundamentalist cowboy actor has been trusted with
> >> presidency, can we really say that capability is such a strong
> >> criteria in politics?
> >Reagan was a Christian, but not a Fundamentalist. Not demented
> >either.
> The evidence suggests fairly strongly that Reagan was suffering from
> the early stages of Alzheimer's, for which Reagan is now being treated.
> The effects of Alzheimer's were previously known as "senile dementia".
Yes, but the word "demented" would only be used for an advanced
case of dementia.
> Whatever one may think of Reagan, the odds are very good that when he
> told Congress he realy couldn't remember what he'd said to Ollie North,
> he was telling the truth.
I don't think it ever mattered much what Reagan said to North anyway.
Some people didn't like Reagan's policies for various, but there
was never much evidence of a scandal.
Brian
But then the Muslim empire stagnated....
Brian
<iran_c...@my-deja.com> skrev i melding
news:93u7ks$q3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Creationism is NOT taught in Iran. Unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't
> have a problem with science, which is why during the European dark
> ages, the Moslems were the scientist.
>
>
>
> In article <93t27n$um8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93t1d5$su9
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <93q6gh$r4m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > clfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <lhs06t05genc253vv...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Therion Ware <tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
> > > > > Does anyone know in which countries Creationism, excluding the
> USA,
> > > is
> > > > > promoted on a visible political level? Or otherwise, come to
> that.
> > > >
> > > > Israel teaches Creationism in its schools. I imagine it's
> > > > popular in Islamic countries as well.
> > >
> > > Sounds correct. In fact, creationism is probably taught in most of
> the
> > > countries of the world.
> >
> > Um, actually not. The entire point of this thread, which has slipped
> by you
> > as usual, is that creationism is almost exclusively a U.S. phenomenon.
> >
> > > > In most Western countries, people who believe in a literal
> > > > interpretation of Genesis (YEC) generally aren't considered
> > > > capable enough to be trusted with any really important
> > > > decision making.
> > >
> > > There's that Darwinian logic: pure speculation about what others
> > > may "generally" think. The tag line is then usually, "I believe it
> > > because I have this perception that others generally believe it."
> >
> > You're making this up out of thin air.
> >
> > > > That's why politically it isn't a major factor. People
> > > > inclined to such beliefs typically take the positions that
> > > > schools should be run mostly at a local level, prayer
> > > > should be allowed, sex education is up to the parents,
> > > > historical revisionism is bad, and vouchers for private
> > > > schools are a good thing.
> > >
> > > There are obvious reasons why support of creationism is correlated
> to
> > > these other viewpoints. And equally obvious reasons why these
> > > viewpoints are correlated to peace and prosperity.
> >
> > Uh-huh. Let's see the peaceful, prosperous countries in the world
> where
> > creationism is taught. Israel, right? I bet Afghanistan teaches it
> also.
> > Maybe Iran. Well, look at that.
> >
> > > Key part of evolution training is to get students to base beliefs on
> > > what secular authorities tell them. Gore lost his home state of
> > > Tennessee, which has traditionally opposed mandatory evolution
> > > teaching, in the last election. Gore did much better in states that
> > > have had mandatory evolution teaching.
> >
> > See. There _is_ a correlation between teaching evolution and
> intelligence.
> >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > When I am dreaming,
> > I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
> > When I get up,
> > I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
> > --Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
> >
> > To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
> >
> >
>
>
Roger Schlafly
> He also was unable to remember the name of the only black member of
> his Cabinet (as am I right now, but he isn't the only black member of
> my cabinet). I remember it was a humorous joke at the time. Now, of
> course, it rings as an early indicator. That is why I don't worry too
> much about Dubya's famed intellectual deficits. If we can survive a
> president suffering senility ....
We not only survived, but Reagan got the economy on track and
won the Cold War. He was the best president of the 20th century.
According to today's news, Bush had trouble with Scalia's first
name. This sort of thing should keep the pundits amused. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/15/bush.scalia.pol.reut/index.html
Winston
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:93viil$3js$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <93uqnk$8hb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Neil Jones <ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
> >> > Most of these individuals never take the time to learn any real
> >> > science, they just pretend it is a belief system. They tend to
> >> > associate science with atheist. This of course is totally false.
> >> > Science says nothing about atheism or theism for that matter.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
> >> that you are entirely wrong.
> >
> >Science is to observe the observable and testing the testable. By
> >definition, God is neither. Studying the natural world with science
> >says as much about the existence (or lack of same) of God as a study of
> >Shakespeare in English says something about the temperature in
> >Greenland. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
>
> Nonsense. If God has any effect on the natural world, that effect
> is subject to examination via the scientific method. (I've
> mentioned several examples in t.o.
> No such effects have ever been found.
>
> This rules out any conceptions of a "God" which takes an
> active role in the natural world -- a popular viewpoint for most
> of the history of Christianity.
Of course a theist can say that the methods that god uses cannot be detected
by scientific methods, thereby rendering their claims unfalsifiable. My
point is mainly that science has nothing to do with the unfalsifiable (i.e.
positive atheism "there is no god", and theism "there is a god"). In this
case, it is *my* view that science states nothing about theism or atheism.
Science does give me comfort in knowing that it does not support the claim
that there is an all mighty christian god.
Peace
Winston
Cynical Prophet
> Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
(SNIP)
> > Science is to observe the observable and testing the testable. By
> > definition, God is neither. Studying the natural world with science
> > says as much about the existence (or lack of same) of God as a
> > study of Shakespeare in English says something about the
> > temperature in Greenland. They simply have nothing to do with each
> > other.
>
> Nonsense. If God has any effect on the natural world,
AFAIK, interaction with the natural world has never been a vital part
to the definition of the present concept of "god" :-)
Correct, if something is attributed to a god, that would be expected to
have an effect on the natural world, we could discover if this is the
case. But while we can test such claims as "God created the entire
universe in 6 literal days, all the animals of their (as yet undefined)
kind" and "the tooth fairy gave me a nickel for my tooth", the nature
and existence of both God and the tooth fairy is beyond the scope of
science, if these two entities are defined as being "beyond this
world". Not that this doesn't prevent scientists from having their own
personal opinions about their existence ;-)
> that effect is subject to examination via the scientific method.
> (I've mentioned several examples in t.o.).
>
> No such effects have ever been found.
>
> This rules out any conceptions of a "God" which takes an
> active role in the natural world -- a popular viewpoint for most
> of the history of Christianity.
Of course. I was talking about gods from a more philosophical point of
view. But yes, it would seem like Xtianity is one of the religions that
are harmed the most by this.
patrick burke
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:93viil$3js$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> Cynical Prophet <cynical...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Neil Jones <ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Winston" <endo...@home.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
> >> > Most of these individuals never take the time to learn any real
> >> > science, they just pretend it is a belief system. They tend to
> >> > associate science with atheist. This of course is totally false.
> >> > Science says nothing about atheism or theism for that matter.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I'd be interested to know more about this point.I am not saying
> >> that you are entirely wrong.
> >
> >Science is to observe the observable and testing the testable. By
> >definition, God is neither. Studying the natural world with science
> >says as much about the existence (or lack of same) of God as a study of
> >Shakespeare in English says something about the temperature in
> >Greenland. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
>
> Nonsense. If God has any effect on the natural world, that effect
> is subject to examination via the scientific method. (I've
> mentioned several examples in t.o.).
Why? If God effects the physical world there is no reason such effects
need be obvious.
>
> No such effects have ever been found.
Or you simply don't recognise them.
>
> This rules out any conceptions of a "God" which takes an
> active role in the natural world -- a popular viewpoint for most
> of the history of Christianity.
Because he won't sign his work? Sorry I don't see it.
>
David C. Fritzinger
Roger Schlafly wrote:
Say what!!!!! The Reagan administration not only sold weapons to our
enemies, they then used the profits from those sales to support El Salvador
(IIRC), something that was specifically banned by congress. No, not a
scandal at all.
Sheesh!
Dave Fritzinger
mark roberson
> Please don't confuse the nutcase policies of the Religious Right and
> people like Andy with genuine conservatives such as myself.
Perhaps you might explain the difference?
MJR
David C. Fritzinger
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Howard Hershey wrote:
> > He also was unable to remember the name of the only black member of
> > his Cabinet (as am I right now, but he isn't the only black member of
> > my cabinet). I remember it was a humorous joke at the time. Now, of
> > course, it rings as an early indicator. That is why I don't worry too
> > much about Dubya's famed intellectual deficits. If we can survive a
> > president suffering senility ....
>
> We not only survived, but Reagan got the economy on track and
> won the Cold War. He was the best president of the 20th century.
He also left us a what, 5 trillion dollar deficit. One that no one did
anything about until that hated Clinton started to get the deficit down.
Reagan also had scandals in several departments, etc. No, I don't think he
was the best president of the 20th century.
Dave Fritzinger
Derek Stevenson
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> > In fact, I think Gore even made some pro-creationist comments at one
> > point in the campaign, to the outrage of a few Leftists. If
> > interested, you can probably find it on the 'net.
>
> His comment was that creationism should be given
> equal time. His handlers corrected him shortly
> afterwards. And it was not "leftists" that
> objected, it was people that knew more about the
> subject than he did.
Exactly -- and the Schlaflese word for "someone who knows more about the
subject than I do" is "Leftist".
Try to keep up, would you?
The Great Hairy One
> Although a goodly number of politicians make much of their religious
> affiliations - the PM John Howard is, I think, a methodist, the
> Treasurer, Peter Costello, a baptist (at least he was when I knew him),
> and the leader of the labour opposition, Kim Beazley is also a church
> goer, but I don't know the denomination) - none of them have ever
> commented on evolution or creationism, and apart from the (Dutch Reform)
> Joh Bjeke Petersen who ran a corrupt Queensland for 20-odd years, no
> government ever has.
I don't see how you can claim that "goodly number of politicians make
much of their religious affiliations" when you don't even know *what*
their religious affiliations actually are. AFAIK no politician in Oz has
stood up and said "I'm a christian/mulsim/hindu/etc." in the last 10 or
so years (that's how long I've been politically aware).
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA
====================================
I have to use Win2000??? Kill me now!
- The Great Hairy
(Remove spam block to email)
Aleister Crowley's Cat
scribed:
personally, I feel that Religion should have fuck all to do with
state. and I tend to gravitate towards the libetarian end of things,
e.g. on legalisation of drugs, abortion, and so on...
Roger Schlafly
> > I don't think it ever mattered much what Reagan said to North anyway.
> > Some people didn't like Reagan's policies for various, but there
> > was never much evidence of a scandal.
> Say what!!!!! The Reagan administration not only sold weapons to our
> enemies, they then used the profits from those sales to support El Salvador
> (IIRC), something that was specifically banned by congress. No, not a
> scandal at all.
North et al found a loophole in the law. Get over it. It was a
good thing the commies were stopped in Central America.
Therion Ware
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Indeed. No price is too high to pay for such a thing, apparently.
"The Army doesn't massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and the
Indians are demon possessed; they are communists. We hold Brother
Efraín Ríos Montt like King David of the Old Testament. He is the king
of the New Testament."[1]
[1] Sectas y religiosidad en America Latina, pub. Instituto
Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales, Casilla 16637, Correo 9,
Santiago, Chile, Oct. 1984, p.23.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>
The alt.atheism twitlist. See: <http://www.twitlist.co.uk>
- there is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.