To prove George Washington was a man of faith, I looked up his speeches on the net and tried to find a site to reference those speeches that didn't seem to have any religious motivations.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee 78 requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend. __________________
Let us unite, therefore, in imploring the Supreme Ruler of nations, to spread his holy protection over these United States: to turn the machinations of the wicked to the confirming of our constitution: to enable us at all times to root out internal sedition, and put invasion to flight: to perpetuate to our country that prosperity, which his goodness has already conferred, and to verify the anticipations of this government being a safe guard to human rights. __________________
The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the Representatives of the People of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the Administration of the present form of Government commenced; and I cannot omit the occasion, to congratulate you and my Country, on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his Providential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the People, may be preserved; and that the Government, which they have instituted, for the protection of their liberties, maybe perpetual. __________________
"To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.â€
{Quote by Gunning Bedford, signer of the Constitution}
“The name of American, belongs to you…[and] with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion.â€
--George Washington in his Farewell Address to the American people, Paragraph 10; September 17, 1796 | photo of farewell address
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.â€
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
While encamped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington's response, he first told them that "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." [4] That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:
You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. [4]
According to George Washington, what students would learn in American schools "above all" was "the religion of Jesus Christ."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=13 George Washington's adopted daughter, having spent twenty years of her life in his presence, declared that one might as well question Washington's patriotism as question his Christianity. Certainly, no one questions his patriotism; so is it not rather ridiculous to question his Christianity? __________________
Again Tim, you can make someone say about anything if you search enough though primary sources.
Most of these qoutes do come from a Christian website. Soooooo what would you expect them to say?
Also, again- if Washington WAS a Christian, it wouldn't bother me. So am I. Neither one of us seeks or sought to put that into the legal language that the Supreme Court makes decisions upon. What are you trying to prove here? That Washington would agree with you putting your religion into government? if he thought so- he had his chance...why didn't he?
"nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that his Providential care may still be extended to the United States"-- like I said, there are frequent usages of this aversion to just say GOD as most Christians always do. I don't know what the answer is- I'm not Washington. But a lot of people think the guy was a Deist as was Thomas Jefferson. At teh very least, you cannot discount the passages I gave you about him saying America was for people of all religions or no religion.
Furthermore, FINALLY you'd still have to reconcile the fact that i just won't pay taxes for you to push a fundamentalist brand of Christianity through the state. Those matters are between me and God and if I resent something about religion, it is YOU trying to weigh in on those matters!!!
Okay, nice chatting with you. On to the next inflamatory subject. Please, something that requires a little less research next time.
Posted: 29 Oct 2006 23:19
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Most of these qoutes do come from a Christian website.
That's why I dug up the first site, Danny. That one from what I can see is more about general history than any political or religious agendas.
Quote: so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
At the very least I believe Washington's speeches does put a great deal of distance between himself and the modern ACLU vision of "Seperation of Church and State". There must be some place for God in Washington's vision of America or else how would he expect the blessings of God on the USA.
Washington actually says the entire success of the Government depends on God.
Quote: you'd still have to reconcile the fact that i just won't pay taxes for you to push a fundamentalist brand of Christianity through the state
Whatever dude. Don't get yourself all up in arms because you can't stamp out religious expression in government areas. Even if you promised jail to everyone who prayed during a congressional meeting or a school function somebody is going to have the guts to do it anyway.
I know you don't see yourself as being all that radical as to put someone in jail for praying on government property, but your ACLU buddies would. Just ask yourself where your logic is taking you on this matter. I have a sense you don't mean to sound so radical, but you really do sometimes.
It's not like I'm saying put people in jail or whatever because they don't respond to Christiainity. All I ask is freedom of expression and or to question or discuss religion in public places. Shouldn't students for instance at least be able to bring up their beliefs about creation when evolution is brought up in class. That in my mind would be freedom of speech, but if students can't even discuss the possiblity of God without fear of getting disciplined, that leans towards a communist approach. __________________
Yeah Tim, I know you tried to find something non-religious. But you didn't have to go to the trouble. As I will keep saying over and over and over again, Washington's religious views will not convince me that we need more religion in government. He did not make any attempt to overturn the separation of church and state built into the bill of rights, he lived in VA during the time that Jefferson wrote and passed the VA statute of Religious Freedom, and he was admant that elected office not hinge on one's religion. If he said God (or providence, as he was fond of saying instead) helped inform the morality that makes society possible then AWESOME. Why would I disagree with that?
You seem to think (or want to think) that I or the ACLU has some interest in stomping out religion. That is nonsense and offensive. I really do not care what an individual does or thinks about God as long as they are not steping on someone else's rights. I am sure the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with me here and so do the courts.
Look, if a kid wants to bring a Bible to school and not get in everyone's face with it- sure, whatever. If a kid wants to pray before a test (God's problem that you didn't study?) then okay- just don't make a big production of it, as other people shouldn't have to put up with academic piety. Want to contest evolution with creationism? Someone ALWAYS does, no matter how many times it is explained that Creationism is irrelevant to science. The problem here is that most professors don't want to offend touchy fundamentalists by proving them wrong, but I never had a teacher who didn't oblige these folks with "you don't have to believe this- you just have to understand it for the test". No huge deal, as I suppose people who deny solid research to that degree weren't going to med school anyway.
But that is more or less the law now.
What I DON'T condone is a teacher using the bible to teach creationism. They might as well teach a hindu version of creation. It has the same factual backing (none) and is much older. Do we need people debating Allah vs Zeus all day? Or can we just agree that this can wait until 3:00pm if it isn't relevant to the days lesson?
Personally, I think self expression in highschool is NOT the reason kids are there. When people (often the left of decades past) brought that into education it had some merits, but it also led to an endless parade of the pretentious opinions of 16 year olds. I know its a high ideal that even the youth have something to say, but usually they are just building shameful memories to last a lifetime. Self-righteousness can wait until college, where it gets a breif stint as a favorable trait.
Have you considered how confused your child might be if their kindergarden teacher started referencing the Koran all the time? Separation of church and state is not some evil force attempting to eradicate religion. You have been misled if you believe that, and someone is profiting from your misconception. Separation of Church and State is the ONLY way we can reasonably govern a place as diverse as the United States. It is the only practical thing to do.
Tim, don't pretend that I'm an exremeist. Fundamentalist means fundamentalist, so if it seems like my beliefs are far from yours, they probably are- that hardly makes you mainstream or moderate. I have often (like 2 posts ago) explained where I part company with the left on several issues.
Communist approach? I think the word you are looking for is totalitarian or oppressive. The inability to separate one concept from another is holding you back in these discussions.
I feel your pain on the blood sugar thing. I'm the same way.
Posted: 30 Oct 2006 17:13
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
And really, we have beaten this horse to death. Can there be anything left to say here?
Anyone else wanna weigh in? SOMEBODY is reading this stuff, you poor bastards!
Posted: 31 Oct 2006 18:58
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Communist approach? I think the word you are looking for is totalitarian or oppressive. The inability to separate one concept from another is holding you back in these discussions.
Commies, Natzis, ACLU, six to one half a dozen or the other.
I'm still willing to bet there are a lot kids that feel they have to hide their beliefs when it comes creation vs evolution within a classroom setting. The feeling I get is that any mention of God in schools is frowned upon.
Is the word "seperation" even in the Bill of Rights anywhere?
Quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Why was it there there was no confusion over what this meant until somewhere in the middle of the 20th Century?
The reason I keep going over the GW speeches is I'm trying to do what you said, bringing up physical facts to support my argument. If this were a court of law I would be trying to establish a pattern to what kind of frame of mind our founders had. Since God is mentioned a lot, it seems logical to assume there isn't as much seperating going on that you would like to think.
You got to admit you are pretty dogmatic about this evolution kick. There is actually a lot more evidence that God created the world than some cosmic accident. The thing you can't ever seem to explain to my satisfaction is how absolutely nothing creates an entire universe. For evolution to occur there had to be some pre-existing building blocks like gases, molecules, whatever, otherwise there would be I assume absolutlely nothing in existence. Everything has to scientifically have a beginning to exist right?
Since there is therefore no logical scientific rationale to explain the possibitity of a world created by evolution you have no choice but to look for a supernatural source. Someone who is by definition above scientific laws since He created those laws to start with.
You can't convince me with long fancy dialogue either, Danny. I have to know just the one simple thing. How does absolutely nothing begin a process that creates everything? Doesn't that take more faith than believing in God? __________________
These kids are afraid to come forward? I heard someone raise hell about this nearly every year I was in school. Besides, it takes guts to speak up at all in class. Many people do not- and the way things are graded allows many people to slip quietly by without contibuting to the general discussion. But that is really their problem.
The reason there was little confusion over this prior to the mid 20th century is because we had a lot fewer religions in this country and a much diminished understanding of science. Now I'm not from India, nor do I think Darwin's findings prove anything about God, but if other people do- that is their business and no one is allowed to use the state to push something else on them. THAT is what you are refering to in the Bill of Rights. The separation occurs when the government cannot endorse any one religion over another- posting comandmentsand such. We've been over this...
I think its great that now you are researching, but keep digging and you'll also find a lot that disagrees with you. Read about the Virginia Statute of Religios Freedom and the Jefferson Bible. Also look at the vast body of work that indicates Washington was a deist. There's a lot on both sides, as people work for lifetimes on this stuff.
(Sigh) Are we back on the damn evolution thing? Look, human beings (in terms of DNA that is observable NOW) are 98.8% genitically identical to Chimps. THere are bones in the ground that are have cabon halflifes that mean they could ONLY be billions of years old. We can STILL detect the red shift radiation from the Big Bang.
I don't presume to know what came before that, neither should you if you're being honest. I mean, what made God? What creates a creator to create an entire universe? The only way to answer that is say "I don't know" or "He's magic". Fine, but saying "He's magic" ain't science. "Everything has to scientifically have a beginning to exist right?" Well, maybe not- but for the sake of argument, what WAS God's beginning? And where did Cain's wife come from?
Also, there are some fascinating, albeit hard books on this origin of existence thing. Try reading one that isn't the one you were handed at birth and threatened with hell for not believing. You might find there are some fascinating truths you've been missing.
You have occasionally insulted me with the notion that I can't believe in evolution and still be Christian. Or that I can't believe that religion, especially my own religion corrupts a governemnt's decision making so the two should be seperate. You are free to draw your own conclusions about it, but if my belief system is complex at least God knows I have done my homework here.
"You can't convince me with long fancy dialogue either, Danny."
Thanks for the compliment on my "fancy" dialouge. Trust me Tim, I'm not dressing anything up for your benifit. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, because you don't want to try on a new idea for whatever reason. I say to keep seeking the truth through logic and research (no matter what you find) gets you closer to the ultimate reality, which i guess you could call God. You say rejecting the findings of science keeps you closer to the truth. We're on different trajectories there. I really don't know what more I can offer you than to just write down what I beleive and where I think you're wrong.
"I have to know just the one simple thing. How does absolutely nothing begin a process that creates everything? Doesn't that take more faith than believing in God?"
Who do I look like to you? Jesus? Einstein? Yoda? Again, the point of science is to not take things on faith. It isn't a religion. It doesn't tell me if I'm going to Heaven or if there is one. It can point out that I have ancestors with much less complicated DNA, but not the spiritual ramifications of that. You're asking science to give you hard and fast spiritual or existance answers like the ones religion tosses out. Well, it won't work the same. In short, I don't know where all this "stuff" came from; I have some ideas, and I can tell you about the observable history of the stuff from our detective work, but there are many unanswerd questions. Some will be answered in time, some are not scientific questions, chief among them being: "Is there a God?"
When scientists don't know something, they just say "we don't know". How "stuff" came about to begin with is a HUGE scientific debate, where all sides are still fighting over the answers. This is usually summed up with "We don't know...yet". All we can test is the fact that stuff does exist and has existed for some time.
You're going to have to read up on methodology on your own, it is too late for me to get going on that again. (Or just read the old postings).
Posted: 01 Nov 2006 15:52
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: I heard someone raise hell about this nearly every year I was in school
How long ago was it since you were in school?
Quote: vast body of work that indicates Washington was a deist
But wouldn't that be from biased sources the same way you consider Christian sites biased?
Quote: Well, maybe not- but for the sake of argument, what WAS God's beginning? And where did Cain's wife come from?
God has no beginning, this assumption takes faith.
Evolution says everything came from nothing, this also takes faith. My point being at the very least an unbiased observer would have to assume both are on a equal playing field from a factual view point.
Quote: the point of science is to not take things on faith. It isn't a religion.
That's what they keep saying, but my goal is to convince you through the lack of evolutionist evidence that it is not the case. As you have admitted there is no explanation for the very beginning of creation through evolution to be explained in a rational method.
Quote: Who do I look like to you? Einstein? Yoda
Come on dude you are a lot smarter than you let on. You won't blow a circuit if you allow this thought process into your mind. Scientifically by your standards there is no answer to how did everything come from nothing from an evolutionist point of view. Because it's physically impossible for nothing to equal something.
You know I was pondering about God not having a beginning, and instead of thinking that it didn't make sense I followed it to it's logical conclusion.
If God has no beginning or end then God is above time. God created time otherwise it would not exist, or one could just say time is an illusion based upon our need to exist in a linear fashion. To God all things are happening at the same time, as if the entire universe were just one giant painting and He was the painter seeing the entire canvas from a few paces back.
As far as the Cain thing, I told you I'm not afraid of the truth. It sounds grose, and I think I've mentioned this before, but God didn't make it a sin for brothers and sisters to marry until somewhere around the time of Moses. When God made it a sin, that's when we were instilled with a feeling of groseness to even think about such a thing. You see God's in charge of every true moral feeling we have.
Evidence exhibit one: Abraham whom we all agree was a man of God married his half sister Sarah.
You know you like these hard discussions. It's not about who wins or loses but about whether or not we find out the truth, like a detective working on a case. That's what makes sci-fi so interesting. It makes you ponder and question your surroundings. Thinking outside the box is fun. That's what made Einstein so great. __________________
Sorry for the delay, but last week was a busy time.
I'm not sure where you get that I'm an old guy. I think I'm flattered but I'm not sure. Anyway, it has not been all that long since I was in school. I also do some teaching from time to time, so I have now seen school from that angle too.
Honestly, school isn't as bad as the media would have you believe. That just always makes such good story: YOUR CHILDREN are in TROUBLE!! People watch.
In reality, I think schools are getting better all the time, but I do think the bureaucracy is out of control. Competition of some sort would help a great deal, but introducing religion into the system on Joe Citizen’s dime is not the answer. This includes vouchers that offer money to private schools.
As far as you having a rough time in high school, well I’m sure it was awful, but hating high school actually speaks volumes about you. If a person has a soul, they will inevitably have a rough time in high school. I trust former nerds a great deal more than I trust former popular kids to this day. You can only have no problems in high school if you are a despot in training. It is a necessary evil, a biodome where only the strong survive concocted so Americans will look back for the rest of their lives and say, “well, at least things are better than they were!†I don’t think a better system has been determined yet. They used to just put you behind a plow or under a big machine at that age and you could look forward to about 15 more years of back breaking work… at which point you die because it got cold one night. 4 years of every man for himself for 7 hours a day is a small price to pay. Also, if you make it through with enough luck, you get college- which is 4 years of learning and being surrounded by attractive girls. Not a bad trade.
Now onto the usual blah, blah, blah…
This struck me as somewhat ironic:
Quote: I just think it's time that instead of arguing politics we should start looking for concrete evidence as much as possible. It drives me crazy to see well meaning individuals who from the evidence I've seen presented fight tooth and nail for nothing just because some politician told them it was a good idea vs. a non-partisan scientist who actually cares about making a difference.
-Tim
Okay, great, you HAVE learned something from all these little chats. So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this next quote since it came from the last time we talked:
Quote: God has no beginning, this assumption takes faith.
Evolution says everything came from nothing, this also takes faith. My point being at the very least an unbiased observer would have to assume both are on an equal playing field from a factual viewpoint.
Again, if something requires faith to believe, then it is not science. That’s just how it is. I keep telling you that when science doesn't have an answer for something, we say, "I dunno, we'll look into it if possible" INSTEAD of saying, "well, probably because invisible people who live in the sky want it that way".
With regard to evolution, for example, you keep trying to combine it with cosmological questions about the big bang, hoping to disprove both. Big bang or not, evolution is observable now. Check out a bar on Sat night- who has the best chance of passing on their genes tonight? The short, fat, ugly, unintelligent person? Unlikely. The attractive 5’10 blonde girl who works for the Pentagon? I bet she’s going to have her pick, and very likely won’t find anybody worthwhile at a bar. She’ll find them at law school or a country club or something.
But that’s just a more humorous example (depending on pov). We can tell evolution goes on because it is observable in things with short life spans, like fruit flies. It is supported by the fossil record. DNA completely seals the deal on it. Things change and have changed over generations- things were NOT made as they are today.
Now this is completely apart from the argument, but the ONLY reason the Church establishment goes out of their way to scare you away from evolution are that they don't like losing ground. I wish I could stand up every Sunday and get paid to tell people what I "feel" is right, by only researching one book. I'm sure if people came about who had evidence that explained things more clearly- I would want them off my turf.
But for you and I, it doesn't have to be that way. Evolution doesn't say the first cross word about God. It doesn't invalidate the concept of God one bit. It doesn't even really address the same question, but for my money I think evolution is a good thing spiritually. It shows how interconnected everyone is and proves that the world isn't random; there is an underlying logic to how things happen. It also shows that humans are the greatest hope we know of so far in the universe, that we were created with special purpose, just as Christianity says, with a great deal of time and effort. It shows that love, reason and the social contract really are something to treasure, and because otherwise we'd all be eaten b things with claws and sharper teeth. Evolution shows that human beings dominate ONLY thanks to communication, cooperation and consciousness. It shows we'll only get better by working together. If science teaches us anything about God, it confirms that Jesus did not mislead us when explaining His nature. Of course, these are my spiritual beliefs and I don't subject people to them on the people's dime, at least not without expecting trouble.
A while ago, you asked me what my definition of Christianity was. I thought this was a snide way to go about trying to make your point, but here you go.
I think to be Christian is to recognize the ultimate message of Jesus and try to live by it- do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and when they do something awful to you, try to forgive them for it.
I don't take the Bible literally, for any number of reasons:
*Why would God create the laws of physics, then drop them for the duration of the Bible, and then pick them back up like it never happened?
* Why would God ask us to believe in things that are not rational, like Johnna and the Whale, then condemn us to hell for seeing that as impossible?
*Why put all those dinosaur bones in the ground?
*Why would God hand everyone around the world a different rulebook?
*If the Bible is so direct, then why bother having free will at all?
More likely the Bible is a combination of things, folklore from the ancient Middle East, divinely inspired writing, and collected wisdom of the ancients on how they saw God. Much of it is still true today, some isn't. This might not be a popular way of looking at things, but it is a conclusion I have reached after much study. Nobody, certainly not you Tim, can accuse me of not looking hard for the answers from all sides of the equation. I was raised in the same kind of church environment you claim to espouse, and I left because it simply seemed unreasonable. Like an ever-growing number of Americans, I don't pay someone else to tell me what God thinks. I go looking for it on my own and the results are between me and God.
Posted: 12 Nov 2006 01:49
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Honestly, school isn't as bad as the media would have you believe. That just always makes such good story: YOUR CHILDREN are in TROUBLE!! People watch.
Gee it was pretty bad when I was there. I'm still troubled. I'm a very angry guy thanks to my school years, I'll have you to know.
Quote: but introducing religion into the system on Joe Citizen’s dime is not the answer. This includes vouchers that offer money to private schools.
Hey that's my pet peeve. Vouchers would help put a fire under the public schools butt and make them actually have to perform like any other business in America. Why should they get a free ride. Everytime you even mention vouchers you get the standard, "the children will suffer" . Personally, I think it's a few teachers and a few adminstrators that would be suffering.
Evolution is man's way of explaining away creation so he doesn't have to bow to God. Problem is that leads to a whole lot of other problems.
Quote: Why would God create the laws of physics, then drop them for the duration of the Bible, and then pick them back up like it never happened?
Easy, to prove he's God. Wouldn't be much of a God if He couldn't bend rules of physics every now and again would he?
Quote: Why would God ask us to believe in things that are not rational, like Johnna and the Whale, then condemn us to hell for seeing that as impossible?
He doesn't condemn you to hell for not believing in Jonah, it's not believing in Jesus. And to be technical we have been condemned since Adam, but through Christ we become pardoned and forgiven, but it's a choice to let Christ's sacrafice stand for our personal sins against God. That's the only way mean ornery people like me have a chance, and to if you are honest you know you are just as wicked as me. Biblically it only takes one sin, and you deserve hell, and only simple belief in Jesus as God's Son to save you. (Not sermonizing just clarifying.)
Quote: Why would God hand everyone around the world a different rulebook?
He didn't.
Quote: *If the Bible is so direct, then why bother having free will at all?
You'll have to ask God, but I think it's because He doesn't want robots to profess love toward Him, otherwise it wouldn't matter much, and the Bible says if you love Him you will keep his commandments. So obeying the Word of God simply shows love toward God.
Please forgive mispelling, but I was in a hurry because the wife says I got to get off now.
I don't know if I need to say this but if some things I write dont seem in the right order it's because the last posted topic always becomes the first one on the board. __________________
Well, I wasn't really looking for answers to those questions. They were more on the rhetorical side. I'm not interested in a spritual debate. You beleive what you believe- fine by me as long as you leave me out of it.
That sucks that you hated highschool. I'm trying to be sensitive here in case something truely awful happened- I have no way of knowing. But for most people, ya just gotta cowboy up with regard to highschool. Its lousy, we all go through it- but the sooner a person gets past what went down for them as a teenager- the better. Its hard for people in every generation, no matter what the circumstances.
With regard to fixing schools and the voucher idea- I do think that competition within schools would be a good thing. But they are not "a business". Thats the point of public schools and why they DON'T have competition. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the government had to educate mass numbers of immigrants speaking a variety of languages along with our native born citizens. It was determined that everyone needed to be able to read. So the public school system as we know it was created and the basic level of education that we offer to folks even at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder is synanamous with the American dream. This is why it is not tinkered with lightly.
I do support more competition in the schools. There are about a million things I would change with the way kids are treated in the modern US. But I have yet to see a good plan for doing so. The democrats are good at increasing the funding, which is good (education is our most valuable comparitive resouce and vital to our standard of living) but they are owned by the teacher's unions, so seldom is any constructive policy made. I have seen government policy made toward education that would curl your hair.
On the other hand- the Republicans are disaster for public education. Their policy is usually just to take something that is in need of repair and try to junk the whole thing. Also, saving someone ten bucks on their tax return is a poor excuse for underfunding or cutting school programs (10$ adds up mind you). The best thing they've ever proposed for public education, "No Child Left Behind" wasn't even fully funded. I am talking here about THEIR OWN PROPOSAL. The voucher program is flawed in that it would drain talent out of the inner city where it is most needed.
Private schools are not the end all solution. Tax givaways to religious groups are of course, off my list as well as for most americans. Charter schools may show some promise. Furthermore, we've been through an america with only private schools and had tons of people going uneducated. We're not an agrarian society anymore- this would be worse than ever.
Posted: 13 Nov 2006 18:52
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Tax givaways to religious groups are of course, off my list
Sorry Danny, but that sounds like hate to me. It's like you wouldn't care if a religious group saved every man, woman, and child in the USA from starvation you would die before letting them have any money.
Vouchers aren't about supporting one religion over another. It's about giving people a choice. Inner city kids could go to private schools just like rich kids, in fact if money is involved private enterprise would most definitely get involved and if they could offer a better education then the inner city kids could choose that route too.
Money talks, but when you give teacher's unions the power they have now, no meaningful changes are going to be made. Why should they? The union's primary goal is protect the interest of the teachers not the students.
Nobody is throwing public school away, but they need a fire put under their britches to get them going, and just petting them on the head and saying your soo good for putting up with our kids, isn't going to help anything.
Trust me competition for money will bring out the best in everybody. Isn't this why we break up monopolies so competition can flourish creating the best possible products for the consumer?
In my opinion this is the only way to deal with the crappy public schools.
So why don't you want poor kids to be able to go to better schools? You afraid they might all go to private schools and "oh my, learn about God" what you'd rather have them die in poverty with a terrible education than to even take a chance they might become evil right wing God lovers? __________________
Vouchers as they were presented were just a roundabout way of redistributing your tax dollars to religious organizations. Tim, I hope for your sake that you are part of the elite in this country. Otherwise, you're promoting the handing over of more the hours of your short life to people richer than you, for nothing.
Actually, we DON'T break up monopolies. We probably should, but the wage gap you see in the United States today is a direct result of all the mergers that took place in the late 90's and early part of this decade.
But back to the schools. I agree, something needs to be done about the public school system, but this is yet another 3rd rail of the american political system. Changes are not undertaken lightly, nor should they be. The educational system has paved the way for 100 years of unrestrained American prosperity and dominace in the world. I think it should be updated, I think we should get better results for our money (same with military spending) but I have YET to see a good nonpoliticised plan to do so. Vouchers were BS and were defeated as such.
As far as what I want for America's kids, don't you dare try to put words into my mouth. You have no idea what my history is with regard to the poor and the children of this country. If you want to tell everyone what YOU have done to fix the educational system or for the poor, then please, be my guest.
Posted: 20 Nov 2006 18:33 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Perhaps if you read John Stossel's Report You might be more in sync with my observations.
ABC News Video
Takes forever to load. I'm still waiting so I can't say how much of the show is on this video, but this is supposed to be the report on video. I saw it on ABC a while back.
Just signed on as a "member" and was surprised to come across a posting about everything from evolution to school vouchers. I am always surprised how many people are all or nothing.
As an example, what would be wrong with vouchers, for advanced schools like Silvan, if they are offered to either gifted kids (regardless of income), OR kids with additional needs? Let the parent decide which schooling would best suit their child. This would be especially helpful for parents that are already paying for the public schooling thru taxes (why make them pay twice).
Regarding evolution, the examples expressed above have no relation to evolution. Sure, you can change the color of a bird or cat, you can make dogs larger or smaller, and Darwin showed how birds beaks can grow longer to become more specialized, but you can not turn a bird into a dog and there is no complete "fossil record" of evolution. Anyone who has "faith" in unproven evolution theory should have an open mind towards other avenues.
Here's a quote from Darwin:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
Posted: 15 Mar 2007 21:43
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Interesting quote.
Quote: Let the parent decide which schooling would best suit their child.
When we decide as a society to stop funding education for all, we start digging a hole we will not get out of.
Our nation needs to be literate and knowledgeable from the garbage man to the CEO of Halliburton. A gigantic problem with vouchers were that they encouraged the dark side (there are two sides) of meritocracy. In other words, you're sending anyone intelligent into what is largely a system of religious schools, assuming THAT is a bright move. This separates them from the riff raff, which then becomes ten times worse with no positive leadership. Lose/lose situation.
Besides, if a parent wants to pay one time for a literate society and another time for a religious education for their child, that is fine by me. But I won't be funding anyone's education at Lynchburg Christian Acadamy through a voucher. Take up a collection for that at the Megachurch and get the preacher to take a paycut. That is perfectly legal.
America gained so much ground on other societies in the 20th century because of our technology. Our technology came from a shockingly bold idea for its time, never tried before in all the world: free education for everyone. Now other countries copy us in this idea and are working hard to catch up.
That being said, I am all for reform in the public schools and I do think tenure has got to go. It was originally conceived to allow teachers to teach unpopular subjects, like evolution without being fired.
So why do i think tenure can go if I see the merits of understanding evolution? Because generations after tenure, evolution has become so ingrained into our medicine and has produced so many good things that it is unlikely to go. Several court cases later, evolution is still taught, simply because our society needs the facts to produce technologies that save our lives and make them better. I'm not talking about a liberal conspiracy here, I'm talking about the kind of technology that has made heart surgery possible on Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and Jerry Falwell.
If you love somebody who has beaten cancer, yes you owe God, but you also owe the understanding of His natural world that human beings have painstakingly discovered.
And as far as tenure- I have been an advocate for it in the past, as I'm human and occasionally wrong. I've certainly borne witness to people within our government eager to dismantle and exploit our public education system to win a cheap vote. But I do think no job should be completely secure unless there is an important reason for such. That isn't fair or productive.
But we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This issue depends on specifics and it is a matter of fine tuning, not taking a hammer to the engine of prosperity. School reform is going to have to be a long, unsexy, moderate, battle for what works, not what works for an ideology or set of religious leaders. Our place in the world depends on that.
Posted: 16 Mar 2007 19:04
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: When we decide as a society to stop funding education for all, we start digging a hole we will not get out of.
How is giving parents a choice on where the funds go stopping funding?
Quote: In other words, you're sending anyone intelligent into what is largely a system of religious schools, assuming THAT is a bright move. This separates them from the riff raff, which then becomes ten times worse with no positive leadership. Lose/lose situation.
So you are admitting religious schools turn out more intelligent students?
Quote: But I won't be funding anyone's education at Lynchburg Christian Acadamy through a voucher.
Fair is fair Christians are asked to fund public schools with their tax dollars even though they don't agree with evolution.
Quote: Our technology came from a shockingly bold idea for its time, never tried before in all the world: free education for everyone.
Again vouchers would still be free to everyone, and also some that success in technology is our spirit of competition which we need in our schools right now.
Quote: evolution is still taught, simply because our society needs the facts to produce technologies that save our lives and make them better.
Sorry to disagree with you so much on this and I'm glad your against tenure, but just for the sake of argument, just how has the theory of evolution helped in creating technologies? You make it sound like the idea we came from a monkey helped scientist understand the human heart better. One could just as easily say that God created the animals hearts and human hearts to operate in mechanically similiar way which when studied by scientist helped them create mechanical hearts etc. I mean I don't how medical scientist come up with this stuff, I'm just theorizing here. You know like Darwin.
Quote: But I do think no job should be completely secure unless there is an important reason for such. That isn't fair or productive.
Amen
Quote: School reform is going to have to be a long, unsexy, moderate, battle for what works, not what works for an ideology or set of religious leaders.
I guess I'm more action oriented, get it done now kind of guy if at all possible. Surprised you said unsexy so does that mean all the teachers will have to stop having sex with their students?
Hope my witty comments don't come off as too argumentive. I heard something on the tail end of Hannity and Comes, Colmes, whatever, that debaters should agree to disagree, but not be disagreeable so in the interest of avoiding making your temper flair at me again. I just want to say I may disagree with you on a lot but I find no reason we can't be friends. So I extend my virtual hand for the virtual hand shake, pal. __________________
Quote: How is giving parents a choice on where the funds go stopping funding?
That was in reply to another poster. He felt people who sent their kids to public school were being charged twice: once to educate their kids by the private school and once to educate everyone else's kids. That is true, and we are better for it. If 1 out of 5 trips to Wendy's they overcharge you (hypothetically- I think they do better) think about how angry that makes you. But what if every time you went there, there was little chance you'd run into somone who could count? So that second time you pay, or the only time for the rest of us, is so you don't have to live in an American version of Borat's Kashakstan.
Quote: So you are admitting religious schools turn out more intelligent students?
No, quite the opposite. I'm questioning whether smart kids should be sent to a private school. Some private schools give vastly inferior educations. I can name one right now. Anyway, re-read my original statement.
Quote: Fair is fair Christians are asked to fund public schools with their tax dollars even though they don't agree with evolution.
Right. They derive the benefits of an educated society. I think we've gotten a bit spoiled on that concept. Seriously, if everyone were paying just for their own kid in America, none of the things we take for granted would be possible.
Besides, the entire reason we have a government is to offer services, like school or security, that are not achievable by the individual. According to John Locke, this was an implied agreement between the people and the government. We give them loyalty and taxes; they give us security, education, roads, and an economic system.
Quote: Again vouchers would still be free to everyone, and also some that success in technology is our spirit of competition which we need in our schools right now.
No, nothing is free. Vouchers would have us all paying for schools we can't weigh in on. Right now, a public school can't say "there is no God". But a private one could, and you and I would have to pay to send smart people there if they wanted. Bad deal.
Quote: Sorry to disagree with you so much on this and I'm glad your against tenure, but just for the sake of argument, just how has the theory of evolution helped in creating technologies? You make it sound like the idea we came from a monkey helped scientist understand the human heart better. One could just as easily say that God created the animals hearts and human hearts to operate in mechanically similiar way which when studied by scientist helped them create mechanical hearts etc. I mean I don't how medical scientist come up with this stuff, I'm just theorizing here. You know like Darwin.
Well, we actually couldn't understand the similarities in some creatures without evolution.
Fox News gives sea urchins as an example. But that is just one weird case. You can't take for granted the process by which the scientific method has sorted this stuff over the past century. Clinton, Falwell and Cheney would be in bad shape if we didn't understand different types of bacteria because of evolution.
Here's an example from from PBS and one more from a professor (not reporter) writing in the NYTimes.
Quote: I guess I'm more action oriented, get it done now kind of guy if at all possible. Surprised you said unsexy so does that mean all the teachers will have to stop having sex with their students?
The action depends on the situation. Somethings we need to very carefully measure out and make sure we don't screw up. The events of the past 4 years are a textbook example of looking before one leaps. Regarding teachers having sex with students, I'm tempted to make a joke, but its been done to death and I don't want to ruin my chances with Ms. Lafav. But that is a good example of how screwed up the hiring process is for the school system, owing to many different factors. I can promise you that woman showed some other signs of being nuts, why did they take her? Besides the hotness?
Same old story- you only run into girls like that when it is the least convenient.
Quote: Hope my witty comments don't come off as too argumentive. I heard something on the tail end of Hannity and Comes, Colmes, whatever, that debaters should agree to disagree, but not be disagreeable so in the interest of avoiding making your temper flair at me again. I just want to say I may disagree with you on a lot but I find no reason we can't be friends. So I extend my virtual hand for the virtual hand shake, pal.
Sure, accepted of course. I think your heart is usually in the right place. There's no way I'll ever convince you about the merits of evolution and that's fine, I'm not a biology teacher anyway. I can only state the facts and let whoever reads make up their own mind.
But my answer to this issue is quite conventional. It is the right of anyone to open a school in their home that teaches kids for free. Churches can independently fund private schooling for those in need. Christian organizations have the money and they do plenty of this around the world. Why not here?
Posted: 17 Mar 2007 01:07
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
You said
Quote: But I won't be funding anyone's education at Lynchburg Christian Acadamy through a voucher.
I said Fair is fair Christians are asked to fund public schools with their tax dollars even though they don't agree with evolution.
You said
Quote: Right. They derive the benefits of an educated society.
So what gives you the right to say what that educated society is taught? This logic is akin to Stalin or a Hitler. Do as the state says or else. You will get educated and it will be on our terms (ACLU terms )unless you just happen to be rich enough to afford a private school or your parents can afford to home school you. Give the parents a break who just happen to want to give their child a better education and need more options. I want to add as well that I would definitely doubt the idea that public schools as a whole are better than private. Parents have a right whether for religious or for strictly academic reasons to send their kids where they want regardless of income, that is assuming you truly believe the government is obligated to make sure everyone has an education. What does it hurt to give people a choice unless you are afraid that a whole lot of kids won't be indoctrinated into one world view. I suspect some hypocrisy here behind the lines. I think your view shows a prejudice and unreasoning fear toward even the possibility of a greater number of students being taught ideas other than those currently approved by the government through lots of lots of court battles by groups like the ACLU. In all fairness the public schools aren't about what most Americans want for their kids, they are products of school union demands, and law suits of the ACLU and other atheist groups. Most Americans are too busy working and surviving day to day to even realize the full scale of the battle that's been going on their courthouse steps for the minds of America's youth.
Quote: Besides, the entire reason we have a government is to offer services, like school or security, that are not achievable by the individual.
Vouchers do not take away the service of a school they only make that service better. It's like given people a menu. What if the government said you had to eat at their restaurant and only gave you one choice to eat? Even poor people are given food stamps so they can choose what food to eat. Why not give people a choice of something just as important the type of education their kids receive. It's only fair unless of course you don't trust people to make the right decisions for themselves. I guess we should force food stamp recipients to eat only approved foods by the government. I bet that would go over good.
Quote: Bacteria with traits that allow them to survive the onslaught of drugs can thrive, re-ignite infections, and launch to new hosts on a cough. Evolution generates a medical arms race. The bad news is that bacteria -- with their fast doubling times and ability to swap genes like trading cards -- evolve quickly. The good news is that in the 150 years since Darwin, we have grown to understand the rules of the race. But can we win this war?
From one those evolution links you gave me. I don't agree that a bacteria changing to defeat medicine is evolution unless you can prove the bacteria became something else entirely. I can lift weights and I can adapt to defeat big bullies. I can over time hitting boards with my hand develop callaces till I can break bricks. It's not evolution it's called getting tougher.
I didn't get to proofread my comments for mispellings or other problems because my wife is calling me to move furniture. Sheesh. So forgive my errors. __________________
Quote: I said Fair is fair Christians are asked to fund public schools with their tax dollars even though they don't agree with evolution.
Right, and I said it is fair for Christians to put their offering plate funds toward private schooling for disadvantaged kids. I'm at my parents house tonight, and right here in middle America, the pastor of the local church has the most enormous house in the neighborhood, purchased by the congregation. I'm not saying thats every preacher- but how many kids could have gone to Lynchburg Christian Academy on that?
Quote: So what gives you the right to say what that educated society is taught?
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You're right, I am one person and nowhere near smart enough or powerful enough to decide these things on my own and have them stick. This is why we have the court battles you brought up. The ACLU gets involved in these sure, as do religious groups. It takes two to tango. Now, we have republican judges, liberal judges and impartial juries all over this county. The make up tends to reflect the locality. But again and again, the court battle results in secular public schooling. This is the fight you are talking about and money is put into it on both sides. I personally cannot help it if you guys aren't getting the point across in court. If you're right, then all the money in the world wouldn't help the ACLU. This is America- you won't find better courts anywhere else.
But you will find a lot more private schools in Europe and a lot more religious schools in the middle east. Apparently, courts there favor what you're talking about. Are their courts more just than ours?
The support of Saudi Arabia for religious private schools across the middle east led to the terrorist movement we're seeing now. So said the 9/11 Commission report.
Courts and elections in America keep deciding that it is in society's best interest to offer secular schooling in exchange for tax dollars. Trust me, I understand your frustration with what you perceive as dumb decisions being made with your tax dollars. I mean hey, my tax dollars went to bomb and invade Iraq, and I thought that was dumb. Where's my refund for hours I put in that were wasted? I was against the war from the get go!
Anyway, religion in school is a political issue and a separate concern from school performance, which is the real crisis. Vouchers didn't fly because the public didn't want it. Secular education has remained because it has been fought out (for decades) in court and it has usually won. That isn't me, that isn't the ACLU, that isn't activist judges, that is American jury after American jury.
And Tim, don't compare me to Hitler and Stalin. You know better.
OK. On to the more important issue, school reform:
I agree to some extent to school choice. Regarding food stamps however, this is a poor analogy. Food stamps are given in lieu of money, because it was found that money often wasn't going to food if you get my drift. Furthermore, I have seen someone dragging a huge bag of frozen food down the street and attempting to exchange it for cash.
But you are correct that competition does improve MOST things. I'll give you another extreme example: in the rush to do things like America, Turkey thought they would be even MORE free market than us, in hopes of getting even better results. They privatized everything, including the fire department. The result was Turkish firefighters waiting for fires to spread to other buildings before putting them out so there would be more business. Competition does not always serve us best. Like I said before, we have to be careful about how we do this.
Still, schools can't just be allowed to fail, consequence free. In my experience, a school fails as a result of low teacher morale, which brings in only the greenest of teaching recruits, which decreases morale. Usually by the time someone is sent in there to turn it around, the teachers are prepared to run them off.
This is a big turn off to young people who want to make a difference, teach for a year then run for the hills. They can't make that difference, because no matter what they do- pay stays the same and the kids don't get any less challenging. Its frustrating! Its communism!
Here are my reccomendations, off the top of my head:
1.)Abolish tenure and raise teacher wages based on SOL GAINS alone. Those jobs would be more competitive and results based.
2.) Do this federally, not by state, not by locality, not by school. This way you don't have an issue with what money is going where, based on the entire school. (Contrary to popular belief, a lot of money is spent on city schools). Instead you have every teacher striving to make gains with their kids, because their wallet depends on it.
3.) Tie this performance to salary over the course of years. This way, it can't be derailed by angry parents or one exceptionally dumb group of kids. If you're an awesome teacher and you gain year after year, you should retire rich no matter what district you taught in.
4.) This will be reflected in improving scores, not top scores. This way, teachers are not punished for teaching in tough districts. As a matter of fact, if you were the ONLY good teacher in a bad school I think you should get more for your efforts. If you're a teacher who sucks, or if your scores decline- you're fired or you make a crappy wage.
Now we've got competition on the most personal level possible. Its practically self employment. If you work hard and get results for the children, you get rewarded. This is far preferable to the sort of mean old women who taught me, wading through tenure with no motivation other than to keep us quiet.
Now finally, the evolution deal. Bacteria do change to defeat medicine, but they don't do it within their individual lifetimes. They adjust over generations, just as evolution explained they would. So this isn't like you lifting weights, to fight the bad guys. This is more like the weakest Tims being killed off by the bullies before they could ever lift a weight. Some tough Tims would survive however, and mate with the tough Tina's, who also survived when weaker Tina's didn't.
Over time, this produces only tough little Tims. Weaker Tims weren't around to make Tim jrs. Over generations of this, an abnormally mean species of Tim is produced to handle bullies.
This guy you don't want to mess with, as a result of being born one bad@ss mutha.
Evolution doesn't really say much about what a creature does with its life other than being born and reproducing. It is up to that tough Tim to decide the meaning of it all. He's in a differnt place than his ancestors, the bullies aren't so scary for him.
He has the capacity to just survive, or to do good works with his toughness, or to become an even bigger bully than the bullies. Its his choice. For me, thats where religion comes in.
Posted: 17 Mar 2007 17:11
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: if you guys aren't getting the point across in court. If you're right, then all the money in the world wouldn't help the ACLU. This is America- you won't find better courts anywhere else.
I think Christians are doing better than they used to, it's just been in recent years Christians started fighting back. You have to remember two factors. There has been a lot of liberal judges in the system, and conservative people tend to go about their business working, paying taxes, and dying without making a big stink out of stuff and protesting and all that crap. It's taken a lot of garbage to get conservatives mad enough to really get out there. The biggest point of all to me is I don't care what judge says something that is wrong is right. That doesn't make it right. A lot of powerful people have said things that were wrong in the past and it didn't make it a fact. How many kings used to say the Earth was flat?
Quote: The support of Saudi Arabia for religious private schools across the middle east led to the terrorist movement we're seeing now. So said the 9/11 Commission report.
So you are suggesting then America needs to control everything that is said in schools otherwise kids will grow up to be terrorists? No offense but you know it's getting really old the way libs keep comparing Christianity and religion in general to Muslims. Christians and most of everybody else doesn't teach people to go out and kill others that don't believe the way we do. A nut could claim to be a Christian and do something terrible, but it would be against our beliefs, a muslim can go strap a bomb to himself and expect to see heaven filled with 50 virgins. My book says, Thou shalt not murder. I have nothing against the less radical muslims, but we have to be honest with what we are dealing with or we are screwed. It's a war of ideals that has to be addressed. Sometimes I think there is more hassle over someone speaking their mind on the muslim faith than there is over a terrorist blowing up people. Yet it's open hunting season on Christians. Me thinks the less violent of our society make good targets. What do you think?
Quote: And Tim, don't compare me to Hitler and Stalin. You know better.
I meant idealistically not literally. Socialism and communism are close cousins to fascim and nazism.
Quote: Food stamps are given in lieu of money, because it was found that money often wasn't going to food if you get my drift.
Well following your logic though the government should start it's own restaurant and make people eat only what's on it's menu.
Quote: They privatized everything, including the fire department. The result was Turkish firefighters waiting for fires to spread to other buildings before putting them out so there would be more business.
Huh, sounds like they were a bunch of crooks. Maybe Turkey is filled with turkeys, but maybe if there were more than one company with a fire fighting unit there the competitors would have put out the fire and probably reported the bad fire fighters so they would lose their license or whatever. In this example you've given there is no competition. Just one team of firefighters. That's a monopoly, and that's one thing I don't like either. Public school systems are a monopoly as well.
Quote: because no matter what they do- pay stays the same and the kids don't get any less challenging. Its frustrating! Its communism!
amen
Your ideas for improving teachers sound ok to me, but I still like vouchers. Call it insurance, and call it choice. Most libs are big on choice with abortion so I don't understand the problem with vouchers. Are we to believe that we have rights over our bodies but not our minds?
On the bacteria thing you are saying each generation gets tougher, but what about the fact that each of our generation seems to be getting taller and fatter too but still kids are larger each generation. Maybe the environment the bacteria is born into has a more to do with it than anything. Plus it makes sense bacteria would build up resistance to our medicine over time even if it is generations down the line. It's not evolution it's nature. We do the same thing.
Besides neither one of us are microbiologist so we can't argue this one very effectively, and I for one am not going to take the word of some scientist I never met when I can easily find one that agrees with me just as well if I looked on the net hard enough.
Well I hope you are around when I'm 80. This keeps my mind sharp if nothing else. They say it's good to exercise your brain especially as you get older. __________________
Quote: I think Christians are doing better than they used to, it's just been in recent years Christians started fighting back. You have to remember two factors.
They're doing about the same in court: not too well. The first example that comes to mind is the intelligent design debate, watered down from creationism, which recently lost in the town of Dover, PA (I think it was PA). Of course, Pat Robertson quickly explained that Dover was going to be smited by the Almighty for this rejection, so win some lose some I suppose.
Quote: There has been a lot of liberal judges in the system, and conservative people tend to go about their business working, paying taxes, and dying without making a big stink out of stuff and protesting and all that crap.
Really? Where's this statistic on liberal judges? Furthermore, I see both sides working hard to push their issues. Don't tell me that conservatives just quietly go about their business. The Christian Right pushes constant social activism. There's always something they're outraged about. Also, as far as I know, I'm still the only left leaning regular poster on this message board.
I stand by my point on that. If you don't think things make sense, why isn't your point of view winning in the best courts in the world?
Quote: No offense but you know it's getting really old the way libs keep comparing Christianity and religion in general to Muslims.
You're right, there are important distinctions, one of which being that Christians in the West don't cling to a 2,000 year old document to make every rule. Did you know we're not even supposed to charge other Christians interest? My accountant told me that the other day, its somewhere in Paul's writings. Clearly people in the West aren't cutting off their own hands if they do evil with them once.
And really, Christians are not persecuted in the US. That 30% that still likes Bush will make or break 3 rather qualified republican contenders for the nomination. Most of that %30 is solidly Christian, in addition to guys like you who have recently felt let down by Bush. Christians are disproportionately represented in the US government. Is that a bad thing? For the debate, for democracy- it is.
Regarding Islam, we may disagree here, but after some study of the Koran and the Middle East, I don't think their religion is the problem. Just like any religion when things get out of control, it is the interpretation that causes the problem. My example is that there are plenty of Muslims living among us here in the US who simply want to go about their day to day just like you or I. Many more in the Middle East DID NOT support what happened on 9/11 and felt Bin Laden had cooked everyone's goose. So again, Islam or Christianity are only as dangerous or bad as a bad person interpreting them.
For this reason, I like to think I interpret my spiritual beliefs on my own. I was raised in a certain tradition, but no priest, preacher or pope is going to tell me whats right or wrong. Who the hell are they? No less flawed than you or I and they certainly have a vested interest in us thinking like them.
But enough about me, back to the fray.
Quote: Me thinks the less violent of our society make good targets.
Amen. If only had a dime for every hawk right winger that has called people against the war cowards, anti-American or accomplices to terrorism. You are right, opposing senseless violence is not easy.
Quote: I meant idealistically not literally. Socialism and communism are close cousins to fascim and nazism.
This is the kind of thing that sets tempers off. First, they aren't. A different political philosophy is a different philosophy. Fascism has waaaaaaaay more to do with ceding rights over to the government as has been done with the Patriot act than it does with anything liberals espouse. But do you EVER hear me calling Bush a fascist? No, you don't, because I understand the important differences in degree between the two, even if Bush has done things more in that direction than past Presidents. There are socialistic and communistic countries that have zero resemblance to Hitler and Mussilini, as evidenced by our granting them of Most Favored Nation status. China and Naorway come to mind. Calling them "close cousins" is just trying to call whatever I say "evil", without coming right out and saying it. FURTHERMORE I am neither a communist nor a socialist. if you need evidence of that, reread the ideas in my last post.
Quote: Well following your logic though the government should start it's own restaurant and make people eat only what's on it's menu.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Tim, you have got to stop putting words in my mouth, especially if you aren't clear on my original meaning. What I gave you was an example of an instance where the government can't just hand people a wad of cash. I'd think you'd agree with me here.
Quote: In this example you've given there is no competition. Just one team of firefighters.
No, this was an entire industry with different companies. Lets try again. Remember when the airlines were deregulated? They used to be under government control. Since then, the US taxpayers have had to bail out the airline industry multiple times just so we can keep planes in the air and the economy running. The cheapest airline (JetBlue) has nearly driven itself out of business by keeping people on the tarmac for over 9 hours. The market doesn't ALWAYS translate to efficiency. Why don't we let the banking industry set the interest rates? Even the Bush and Reagan administrations attempted to "manage" the economy through adjusting these rates. Its okay, it doesn't make us all commies, it just means that the market doesn't ALWAYS produce as good of an answer as a government effort can and vice versa. It takes a balance. Even Adam Smith thought so.
As far as the science goes- whether or not you've met the scientist is irrelevant. You don't have to grab a beer with Galileo to know the earth rotates around the sun. Its the logic that matters. I think I have argued this pretty effectively, but there isn't any changing your mind on evolution and that is no big deal to me. I do wonder why you don't debate gravity with the same gusto- as it is also a scientific theory, but I think you're okay no matter what science you selectively disapprove of.
2050? Sure, I'll see ya there- I hope to keep getting smarter for a long time to come and other points of view are crucial to that. Didn't we start arguing about everything in late 2005?
Posted: 18 Mar 2007 00:05 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Don't tell me that conservatives just quietly go about their business.
It's true for years libs and hippies without jobs ran around with signs marching up and down while your average joe was too busy providing for his family. Conservative by definition means someone that is well conservative. They restrain themselves usually and don't get all worked up like they should sometimes.
Everybody knows the judges we've had in recent years are as liberal as they come. Wacked out commie liberal or they would have never of taken God of schools to begin with.
Quote: Christians are disproportionately represented in the US government
I don't know about that I heard a recent poll that said 24 percent of Americans were catholic and oh I think it was 40 something percent were protestants. All together it was very close to or passed 70 percent. I guess there might be some Christians who don't consider themselves either protestant or catholic. In fact I know there is. I heard one preacher the other day refuse to be called protestant and he sure wasn't catholic.
Quote: So again, Islam or Christianity are only as dangerous or bad as a bad person interpreting them.
Well they got that jihad thing from somewhere, and I don't see any Christian groups anywhere blowing themselves up do you?
As far as the next argument socialism is communism watered down. Communism is just the next step up the ladder.
Quote: What I gave you was an example of an instance where the government can't just hand people a wad of cash.
Well that goes without saying. I just expanded on the original example for you.
I'm not going to argue about airlines because I have no idea about that. One I never fly. I'm more scared of flying than Mr. T on the A-team so I couldn't tell you anything about the airline industry. So you might ought to use something we hillbillies can relate to.
Quote: why you don't debate gravity with the same gusto- as it is also a scientific theory,
I can clearly see the effects of gravity. It's cut and dry. I can experiment with it right here. I drop my pencil and it falls to the ground. I can't make my pencil turn into a monkey though. I guess I win.
Debate till 2050 well I hope they come up low flying cars by then. I'm also hoping for super strength, and a huge slow in the aging process.
Quote: Debate till 2050 well I hope they come up low flying cars by then. I'm also hoping for super strength, and a huge slow in the aging process.
Wow Tim, you're going to be so glad that we taught evolution to kids so they can keep you from aging. If you get to hang around forever though, you have to promise to acknowledge what science has done for you. I seriously can't keep explaining this indefinitely.
Quote: It's true for years libs and hippies without jobs ran around with signs marching up and down while your average joe was too busy providing for his family. Conservative by definition means someone that is well conservative. They restrain themselves usually and don't get all worked up like they should sometimes.
Everybody knows the judges we've had in recent years are as liberal as they come. Wacked out commie liberal or they would have never of taken God of schools to begin with.
Was Thomas Jefferson a hippie with no job? Was he a liberal commie? Of course not, but he certainly believed in separation of church and state. So do all the courts apparently.
As for the rest of this somewhat bold (read: total bull%^@) assertion of yours, where is the evidence for this? Really Tim, I want you to dig around and convince me that the courts of the United States are completely liberal and biased. Please explain how they got this way.
I suspect the real answer is that the courts ARE NOT biased one way or another. Rather, they tend to reflect the locality or body they represent. (Except for the Supreme Court, which has a majority of conservative Justices, but still haven't put Jesus back in the courtroom). Furthermore, you're forgetting about juries, which can't ALL be hippies.
Also, I've been working since I was 15 years old and those jobs were not usually easy ones. I made my own way through college- busy 24-7 waiting tables and writing papers. Somehow I managed to find time in college to protest the things that I thought were blatantly stupid. What a lazy hippie!
My father is actually far more liberal than me and HE has worked his entire life, farming for the first part, then attending college while working, then building his own very successful business. He seemed to find time to write editorials with a liberal point of view while supporting his family and making his way. But it sure didn't make him conservative.
Somehow you and I find time to argue over this BS now. I really don't have time to debate this stuff, but usually do so when I'm working weekends- LIKE TODAY. So if you're going to whine that you don't have time to counter the "hippies without jobs" (I suppose that would be me), you picked the wrong day.
As far as Christianity in the US government- the religious breakdown is something like Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24% Mormon 2%) other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%. So Christianity is overrepresented. Where are the senators speaking for "none" or "other"? I'm sure this is not a point of concern for you, but it is important to the national debate.
AND YET, somehow with nearly every public official professing Christianity, we don't have religion in school. You might say they're not really Christian. I say they they can recognize important distinctions.
Quote: Well they got that jihad thing from somewhere, and I don't see any Christian groups anywhere blowing themselves up do you?
No, but I did see Christian groups lining up to support our nation blowing OTHER people up. Where was the Christian resistance to Iraq? (Aside from John Paul II).
And regarding gravity- are you telling me that if you personally can't experiment on a scientific theory (gravity is also a theory-same clout as evolution) you don't believe in it? Tim, don't make me cite YOU as a source.
Posted: 18 Mar 2007 15:33
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote: Wow Tim, you're going to be so glad that we taught evolution to kids so they can keep you from aging. If you get to hang around forever though, you have to promise to acknowledge what science has done for you. I seriously can't keep explaining this indefinitely.
You are borderline cult follower on this aren't you?
Quote: Was Thomas Jefferson a hippie with no job? Was he a liberal commie? Of course not, but he certainly believed in separation of church and state. So do all the courts apparently
You know better than that. You know he never even mentioned the phrase seperation of church and state except to a preacher in a letter where he was trying to convince the preacher that the government would never interfere with his church. The preacher wasn't worried about his own involvement in the government.
Quote: I want you to dig around and convince me that the courts of the United States are completely liberal and biased.
You know them by what they do remember. You agreed on that before. As far as the exact time and all that I've only got 10 minures before church so I don't have time to go through a lengthy research, but a liberal ruling is obvious. Anybody can see the ruling to take God out of schools was liberal, or how about those environmental cases where farmers get their land taken away for having a mongoose rat on their property. They are some liberals in our government rest assured on that.
Quote: Furthermore, you're forgetting about juries, which can't ALL be hippies.
Besides you are not getting the main point that libs presented their cases early on while conservatives didn't. It's not going to do us any good if you just disagree to be disagreeing.
Quote: My father is actually far more liberal than me and HE has worked his entire life, farming for the first part, then attending college while working, then building his own very successful business. He seemed to find time to write editorials with a liberal point of view while supporting his family and making his way
Still proves a liberal will go out their way to spread their view. Also just because you say he's a liberal doesn't mean much since your definition and mine don't match up very well.
Quote: Somehow I managed to find time in college to protest the things that I thought were blatantly stupid. What a lazy hippie!
Gee, I didn't know your were a hippie. I thought you were younger than that. Were you a kid in the 60's early 70's?
Quote: As far as Christianity in the US government- the religious breakdown is something like Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24% Mormon 2%) other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%. So Christianity is overrepresented. Where are the senators speaking for "none" or "other"? I'm sure this is not a point of concern for you, but it is important to the national debate.
That doesn't make sense. How are they overrepresented? This shows a majority plus if you add Jewish people that have the basic fundamental beliefs we do and even the mormons all is left none and other and what exactly is other? So you going to throw away the majority in hopes not to offend what's left.
Quote: And regarding gravity- are you telling me that if you personally can't experiment on a scientific theory (gravity is also a theory-same clout as evolution) you don't believe in it?
Dude I was just letting you know the major difference between believing in evolution or gravity. You brought it up as if they were related. Every scientific principle has it's own arguments or proof.
Got to go, time for church. not bad writing for 10 minutes huh? __________________
It's not about who wins or loses but about whether or not we find out the truth, like a detective working on a case. That's what makes sci-fi so interesting. It makes you ponder and question your surroundings. Thinking outside the box is fun. That's what made Einstein so great.
Biblically it only takes one sin, and you deserve hell, and only simple belief in Jesus as God's Son to save you. (Not sermonizing just clarifying.)
You'll have to ask God, but I think it's because He doesn't want robots to profess love toward Him, otherwise it wouldn't matter much, and the Bible says if you love Him you will keep his commandments. So obeying the Word of God simply shows love toward God.
