Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Religion in politics
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 10 2005, 11:24 AM)
Y'know, that's how they practiced science up until 1600 or so, and it produced the "humors" theory of disease, and alchemy.
[right][snapback]136157[/snapback][/right]


If it happens that the 17th century makes a comeback, it would be a major coup.

It's amazing how positively medieval some American folks are.
Grigorii
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Oct 11 2005, 02:32 AM)
It's amazing how positively medieval some American folks are.
[right][snapback]136394[/snapback][/right]



Scary actually, when one chooses to pitch out Liberalism and it's many reforms that is what is left...a return medieval social thinking…royalism, the divine right of leadership, torture, star chamber law...the whole nine yards.
davisął
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Oct 11 2005, 06:46 AM)
Scary actually, when one chooses to pitch out Liberalism and it's many reforms that is what is left...a return medieval social thinking…royalism, the divine right of leadership, torture, star chamber law...the whole nine yards.
[right][snapback]136409[/snapback][/right]



Medieval? That and the worse aspects of the 30s and 40s.

Add brownshirt young Republicans wanting to censor and destroy any teacher or professor who refuses to spew their venomous rightwing bullshit to your list.

Grigorii
QUOTE(davisął @ Oct 11 2005, 05:50 AM)
Medieval? That and the worse aspects of the 30s and 40s.

Add brownshirt young Republicans wanting to censor and destroy any teacher or professor who refuses to spew their venomous rightwing bullshit to your list.
[right][snapback]136411[/snapback][/right]


That old commie Horowitz and his moron brigades? Fortunately they are just loud and obnoxious as opposed to numerous. I think they are making small inroads in a generation that see little positive about post graduation prospects thanks to their ilk.
Friend Judy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w143722D66.DTL
QUOTE
The White House tried Wednesday to patch a growing fissure in the Republican Party over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers by pointing to her conservative religious beliefs. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," President Bush said.

Bush defended his nomination, saying Miers was highly qualified, a trailblazer in the law in Texas and someone who would strictly interpret the Constitution — something his conservative supporters want evidence to support. He said his advisers' comments about Miers' churchgoing were meant to give people a better understanding of his little-known nominee.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," he said. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

That comment further inflamed critics of the nomination who contend Miers' religion is being used to sell the nominee to the right flank of Bush's conservative base. They argue that the president is asking them to trust him and blindly support his nomination even though Miers has no judicial record that would offer insight into how she would vote on the high court.

On a radio show broadcast Wednesday, James Dobson, founder of the conservative Focus on the Family, said that before Miers was nominated, deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove reassured him that she was an "evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."

Religion was an area the White House carefully avoided in pushing the chief justice nomination of John Roberts just a month ago. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts sought to assure senators that his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views. "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role," said Roberts, who is Catholic.

"The White House and the religious right leaders rallying around the beleaguered nomination of Harriet Miers continue to cite her religious beliefs and the church she attends as reasons to believe she will oppose abortion rights and to bolster support for her among activists on the far right," said Ralph Neas, director of the liberal People for the American Way. "What's wrong for John Roberts can't be right for Harriet Miers."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said anyone who tried to bring up the topic of religion during the Roberts confirmation was labeled a bigot. "Now Bush and Rove are touting where Miers goes to church and using that as a selling point," Lynn said. "The hypocrisy is staggering."

A little over a week since Miers was nominated, complaints continued from the right. Other conservatives, however, jumped into the fray to support Miers.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has endorsed Miers, issued a warning to conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her. "They're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation? Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office," he said.

Evangelical support of Miers, however, is weaker than it was for Roberts, according to AP-Ipsos polling. In the days after the nominations, twice as many evangelicals felt strongly that Roberts should be confirmed to the Supreme Court as felt that way about Miers.

Republicans overall were less enthusiastic about Miers than Roberts. Almost three-fourths wanted Roberts confirmed, compared to six in 10 for Miers.

Dobson said Rove also said she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. Told of Dobson's comments, Elizabeth Graham, director of the 300,000-member Texas Right to Life, said, "I don't know where he would have gotten that information. I'm not able to confirm or deny" whether Miers is a member. Graham said the membership list was not public.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it was his understanding that Miers attended some of the group's fundraising events. Miers bought a $150 ticket to a Texas anti-abortion group's fundraising dinner in 1989, the year she won a term on the Dallas city council, said the group's president, Kyleen Wright of the Texans for Life Coalition, then called Texans United for Life. She said the dinner drew about 30 other officeholders or candidates as "bronze patrons," the lowest level of financial support.

Dobson said Rove also told him that some prospective court candidates bowed out because they didn't want to subject themselves or their families to a confirmation that "has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter."

(Posted in full so as not to be accused of cherrypicking.)

And what exactly is it he wants us to "understand" about Ms. Miers, her religious beliefs, and nominating her for SCOTUS? That she will rule as her religion dictates? That she won't? That the Constitution is revealed wisdom that can't possibly ever be in conflict with her religious beliefs? That she can separate those personal beliefs from her interpretation of the law? (And yes, I actually DO understand what he want us to understand. He might as well be jumping up and down screaming "CODE WORDS! CODE WORDS!")

So, I'll be really, really blunt: What am I, as a non-Christian, and "Christians" who are not conservatives, and, I dunno, non-evangelical Christians to make of this? (Besides, of course, the obvious, which is that Bush is trying to play both sides of the same coin simultaneously, and that his wink-and-nod routine isn't working this time.)
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Oct 12 2005, 08:31 PM)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w143722D66.DTL

(Posted in full so as not to be accused of cherrypicking.)

And what exactly is it he wants us to "understand" about Ms. Miers, her religious beliefs, and nominating her for SCOTUS? That she will rule as her religion dictates?  That she won't?  That the Constitution is revealed wisdom that can't possibly ever be in conflict with her religious beliefs?  That she can separate those personal beliefs from her interpretation of the law?  (And yes, I actually DO understand what he want us to understand.  He might as well be jumping up and down screaming "CODE WORDS!  CODE WORDS!")

So, I'll be really, really blunt:  What am I, as a non-Christian, and "Christians" who are not conservatives, and, I dunno, non-evangelical Christians to make of this?  (Besides, of course, the obvious, which is that Bush is trying to play both sides of the same coin simultaneously, and that his wink-and-nod routine isn't working this time.)
[right][snapback]136999[/snapback][/right]

It's working fine. Just lay back and enjoy it.
davisął
I saw Jimmy Carter on Larry King tonight. He talked about the use of religion in politics. Good interview.
Arturo_Vandelay
Another religious nut?
davisął
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 2 2005, 08:51 PM)
Another religious nut?
[right][snapback]145944[/snapback][/right]



No. He is the genuine article. I have the greatest respect for him and those like him. He is not a bit like the opportunistic tele-evangelical maggots that infest the WH and Congress. He is not a felon who uses his faith as a shield to escape accountability for his crimes. He is a decent person and a gentleman too. That is a hell of a lot more than I can say for the so called faith-based Republican evangelical politicians who dominate the right these days.
CharlieRay
QUOTE(davisął @ Nov 2 2005, 10:15 PM)
No. He is the genuine article. I have the greatest respect for him and those like him. He is not a bit like the opportunistic tele-evangelical maggots that infest the WH and Congress. He is not a felon who uses his faith as a shield to escape accountability for his crimes. He is a decent person and a gentleman too. That is a hell of a lot more than I can say for the so called faith-based Republican evangelical politicians who dominate the right these days.
[right][snapback]145991[/snapback][/right]


Aye!... I like ole Jimmy a lot also.
Mizilus
SUPPORT FASCISM

VOTE REPUSLICKAN

LIE CHEAT STEAL AND KILL FOR CHRIST
Mizilus
Interview with Former President Jimmy Carter

Aired November 2, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight a primetime exclusive with America's 39th President Jimmy Carter. He's taking on the religious right and will take your calls and we'll get into that CIA leak indictment, the new Supreme Court nominee and a lot more with former President Jimmy Carter next on LARRY KING LIVE.
He's been on this program many times and it's always a delight to welcome him, President Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States. One year ago today the 43rd president was elected, so there's only been 43 in the history of this great country.

His new book is called "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis." There you see its cover. He's written many books, written fiction, written poetry, written children's books but here he gets into the political arena, why?

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I've been very concerned, Larry, that some of the basic moral values of our country in the last few years have been profoundly and dramatically changed in an unprecedented way and I believe that this is the part not just from what Democrats or Republicans believe and it's not between just recent changes.

It means that the things that we are doing now with our government have never been done before in history and that includes the time of George Bush, Sr. It includes the time of Gerald Ford. It includes the time of Ronald Reagan and all the way back to Eisenhower.

And so these changes have really severely changed the basic attitude of our country, the basic policies of America's government and I believe this is something that is of great concern, not only to me but to many other people.

KING: You say morals of the country but doesn't the religious right, the religious far right, the evangelicals preach morals?

CARTER: Of course they do. A lot of people teach morals and I believe that everybody has their own standard of morals. One of the things that does concern me about recent developments is it does (INAUDIBLE) an unprecedented increase and a commitment to fundamentalism in the religious right and also within the government and that has been coming along for the last 20, 25 years.

Another change though is that for the first time in the history of our country since Thomas Jefferson said build a wall between church and state there has been a deliberate and overt, not secret melding of religion and politics or the church and state, which I believe is not only contrary to what our founding fathers intended and what everyone else has agreed to the last 230 years but also in my opinion as a Christian it's different from what I've been taught to believe in my religion.

KING: President Carter, you're a lay preacher right?

CARTER: No, I teach Sunday school but I'm not a preacher, no.

KING: But you're very religious?

CARTER: Yes, I'm a devout Christian, yes like many other people.

KING: OK. You're a devout Christian. Is it a thin line between what you believe and what the fundamentalist believes?

CARTER: Yes, there's a thin line between what I think all deeply religious people believe. Ordinarily most of us, whether we are Christians or Catholics or Protestants, whether we are Jews or whether we might be Muslims, we basically agree on justice, on service to others, on humility, on truthfulness, on peace, I worship the Prince of Peace, on forgiveness and on compassion. So, there are a lot of things that bind us together.

A fundamentalist though, as I define in this book, in extreme cases has come to the forefront in recent years both in Islam and in some areas of Christianity. A fundamentalist by, almost by definition as I describe is a very strong male religious leader, always a man, who believes that he is completely wedded to God, has a special privilege and relationship to God above others.

And, therefore, since he speaks basically in his opinion for God, anyone who disagrees with him at all is inherently and by definition wrong and therefore inferior. And one of the first things that a male fundamentalist wants to do is to subjugate women to make them subservient and to subjugate others that don't believe as he does.

The other thing they do, and this is the only other thing I'll add, is that they don't believe that it's right to negotiate or to compromise with people who disagree with them because any deviation from their absolute beliefs is a derogation of their own faith. So, those two things, exclusiveness, domination and being very highly biased are the elements of fundamentalism.


(more)




http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/02/lkl.01.html
SherryB
"both in Islam and in some areas of Christianity. A fundamentalist by, almost by definition as I describe is a very strong male religious leader, always a man, who believes that he is completely wedded to God, has a special privilege and relationship to God above others.

And, therefore, since he speaks basically in his opinion for God, anyone who disagrees with him at all is inherently and by definition wrong and therefore inferior. And one of the first things that a male fundamentalist wants to do is to subjugate women to make them subservient and to subjugate others that don't believe as he does.

The other thing they do, and this is the only other thing I'll add, is that they don't believe that it's right to negotiate or to compromise with people who disagree with them because any deviation from their absolute beliefs is a derogation of their own faith. So, those two things, exclusiveness, domination and being very highly biased are the elements of fundamentalism."


Very dangerous people. Both Christian and Islamic.
davisął
indeed. That includes the Dobsons, Boykins, and even the arrogant corporate whore phony pieces of garbage like Bush, DeLay and Frist.
Repub_Bub
QUOTE(SherryB @ Nov 3 2005, 08:48 AM)
both in Islam and in some areas of Christianity. A fundamentalist by, almost by definition as I describe is a very strong male religious leader, always a man, who believes that he is completely wedded to God, has a special privilege and relationship to God above others.

And, therefore, since he speaks basically in his opinion for God, anyone who disagrees with him at all is inherently and by definition wrong and therefore inferior. And one of the first things that a male fundamentalist wants to do is to subjugate women to make them subservient and to subjugate others that don't believe as he does.

The other thing they do, and this is the only other thing I'll add, is that they don't believe that it's right to negotiate or to compromise with people who disagree with them because any deviation from their absolute beliefs is a derogation of their own faith. So, those two things, exclusiveness, domination and being very highly biased are the elements of fundamentalism

  Very dangerous people.  Both Christian and Islamic.
[right][snapback]146012[/snapback][/right]

You must live in an awfully small world or else ya simply get your input from TV.

SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 3 2005, 08:59 AM)
You must live in an awfully small world or else ya simply get your input from TV.
[right][snapback]146046[/snapback][/right]

I guess President Carter's world may seem small to you, you bein' such a cosmopolitan guy yourself, and such.
Repub_Bub
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 3 2005, 02:02 PM)
I guess President Carter's world may seem small to you, you bein' such a cosmopolitan guy yourself, and such.
[right][snapback]146048[/snapback][/right]

Gosh, youre probly right, space.....aint nothing more satisfyin than bein able to quote Jimmy Carter.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 3 2005, 09:09 AM)
Gosh, youre probly right, space.....aint nothing more satisfyin than bein able to quote Jimmy Carter.
[right][snapback]146051[/snapback][/right]

Thanks, I knew you'd understand. smile.gif
davisął


Britain Lifts Ban on Rev. Sun Myung Moon

By Associated Press

November 4, 2005, 6:18 AM EST

LONDON -- Britain lifted a 10-year-old ban that kept the Rev. Sun Myung Moon from entering the country, saying Friday that the controversial religious leader was unlikely to threaten public order.

The 85-year-old Moon, who calls himself a messiah and is known for conducting mass weddings, was scheduled to speak to followers of his Unification Church in London on Saturday.


Moon was banned from entering Britain in 1995, on the grounds that his presence would not be "conducive to the common good for reasons of public order."

Britain's Home Office said it had written to Moon advising that the exclusion had been lifted. "The Unification Church in the United Kingdom is extremely small and any visit by its founder is considered unlikely to pose any threat to the public order of this country," the government department said in a statement.

Moon's Unification Church owns hundreds of companies around the world, including media groups.

In 2004, Moon was the center of a coronation ceremony in Washington, D.C., at which he declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings had helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."


Typical Republican. laugh.gif laugh.gif

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...world-headlines
Repub_Bub
QUOTE(davisął @ Nov 4 2005, 03:16 PM)
The 85-year-old Moon, who calls himself a messiah and is known for conducting mass weddings, was scheduled to speak to followers of his Unification Church in London on Saturday.

So...were you and/or family members married in England? smile.gif
SherryB
An aide to Tom DeLay shows how they manipulate the Christian right to vote the way they want them to:

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

They consider the Christian right "wackos". So do I. That's one thing DeLay and I agree on.

The only thing.


SherryB
Link to Abramoff article.




http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/
Guest
QUOTE(SherryB @ Nov 4 2005, 04:09 PM)
Link to Abramoff article.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/
[right][snapback]146342[/snapback][/right]

You certainly count on Salon being an unbiased and credible source! laugh.gif biggrin.gif

HAHEHAW HAHEHAW HAHEHAW
Mizilus
since when did a bushlover want an unbiased source?
SherryB
QUOTE(Guest @ Nov 4 2005, 01:12 PM)
You certainly count on Salon being an unbiased and credible source! laugh.gif  biggrin.gif

HAHEHAW  HAHEHAW  HAHEHAW

[right][snapback]146365[/snapback][/right]


If you go to the article the "source" is the US SENATE. AN INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING. YOU IDIOT.


inyerface
You count on the idiot being an unbiased and credible source...?
SherryB
QUOTE(inyerface @ Nov 4 2005, 01:49 PM)
You count on the idiot being an unbiased and credible source...?
[right][snapback]146374[/snapback][/right]


I love your flag. See alot of them in Toledo.


inyerface
thank the uniter
davisął
These folks keep on insisting ID has nothing to do with religion yet everyone who backs it are Christians. They have to realize they prove they are liars and any credibility they had or demand is shot completely to hell. It really amazes me how they continue this BS.

In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit


By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 4, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 3 - For years, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan visited school boards around the country searching for one willing to challenge evolution by teaching intelligent design, and to face a risky, high-profile trial.


Intelligent design was a departure for a nonprofit law firm founded by two conservative Roman Catholics - one the magnate of Domino's pizza, the other a former prosecutor - who until then had focused on the defense of anti-abortion advocates, gay-rights opponents and the display of Christian symbols like crosses and Nativity scenes on government property.

But Richard Thompson, the former prosecutor who is president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Center, says its role is to use the courts "to change the culture" - and it well could depending on the outcome of the test case it finally found.

Lawyers for the center are to sum up their case on Friday after a six-week trial in which they have been defending the school district in the small Pennsylvania town of Dover. The school board voted last year to require that students in ninth grade biology class be read a statement saying that "Darwin's theory" is "not a fact" and that intelligent design is an alternative worth studying.

At issue in the Dover lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in Federal District Court, is whether intelligent design is really religion dressed up as science, and whether teaching it in a public school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The More center's lawyers put scientists on the witness stand who argued that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them - is a credible scientific theory and not religion because it never identifies God as the designer.

Still religion is at the heart of the case's appeal for the center, say its lawyers and the chairman of its board.

The chairman, Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner, said the board agreed that the center should take on an intelligent design case because while it is not necessarily based on religion "it is being opposed because people think it is religious." And that was enough for a group whose mission, as explained on its Web site, is "to protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square."

dry.gif


Then he goes on to show how big a Christian advocate he is.



"America's culture has been influenced by Christianity from the very beginning," Mr. Thompson said, "but there is an attempt to slowly remove every symbol of Christianity and religious faith in our country. This is a very dangerous movement because what will ultimately happen is, out of sight, out of mind."

The legal group was founded in 1999 by Mr. Thompson and Thomas Monaghan, the former chief executive of Domino's pizza. At the time, Mr. Thompson had just lost his re-election campaign for prosecutor in Oakland County, Mich., defeated by voters disenchanted by his pursuit of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist who attended numerous assisted suicides.

In earlier cases, the center defended an enormous cross placed on a hill outside San Diego and Nativity scenes in Florida and New York. It sued the Ann Arbor schools for providing benefits for same-sex partners. And in one of its most controversial cases, it defended an anti-abortion group that ran an online list of doctors it said should be stopped from providing abortions. The doctors said the group was threatening them and their families. Mr. Thompson said in an interview it was "a very important free speech case."

To find its first intelligent design case, the lawyers went around the country looking for a school board willing to withstand a lawsuit. In May 2000, Robert Muise, one of the lawyers, traveled to Charleston, W.Va., to persuade the school board there to buy the intelligent design textbook "Of Pandas and People" and teach it in science class.

Mr. Muise told the board in Charleston that it would undoubtedly be sued if the district taught intelligent design, but that the center would mount a defense at no cost.

"We'll be your shields against such attacks," he told them at a school board meeting, a riff on the center's slogan, "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith." He said they could defend teaching intelligent design as a matter of academic freedom.



But sir, you are lying when you do. After all, deception in any form is a lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/science/...artner=homepage
inyerface
user posted image
Bee
QUOTE
[wacky] Professor Defends 'Intelligent Design' in Pennsylvania Trial

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 4, 2005
Filed at 8:15 p.m. ET

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A lawyer for eight families urged a federal judge on Friday to overturn a policy that requires the discussion of ''intelligent design'' in biology classes, saying it improperly promotes religion in schools.

A lawyer for the school board defended the policy, explaining that it was intended to call attention to a new ''science movement.''

The families' attorney, Eric Rothschild, said the concept promotes the Bible's view of creation with its belief that evolution cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

''Intelligent design became the label for the board's desire to teach creationism,'' Rothschild said in closing arguments.

Patrick Gillen, a lawyer for the Dover Area School Board, argued that the concept was intended to call attention to ''a new, fledgling science movement.''

The policy requires students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution.

The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is ''not a fact,'' has inexplicable ''gaps,'' and refers students to a textbook for more information.

The school district's policy ''has the primary purpose and primary effect of advancing science education,'' Gillen said.

Eight families are suing to end the practice, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The lawyers wrapped up a six-week trial that featured expert witnesses for each side debating intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses clashed over whether creationism was discussed in school board meetings months before the curriculum changed in 2004.

Federal Judge John E. Jones III said he hoped to issue a ruling no later than January.

Earlier Friday, the defense concluded its case with testimony from University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich, who supports discussing the concept in high school science classes.

Minnich said under cross-examination that intelligent design articles are not found in the major peer-reviewed scientific journals because it is a minority view.

''To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process,'' he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, which says that its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ev...ion-Debate.html
Nomarchy
QUOTE
Science is not a democratic process.


What's "democracy" have to do with this? And is the above claim somehow a critique of science?
Bee
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Nov 4 2005, 10:19 PM)
What's "democracy" have to do with this? And is the above claim somehow a critique of science?
[right][snapback]146502[/snapback][/right]


Apparently--and, no--science is not a democratic process. It is science. ID is not science.
davisął
If you are faith-based and ENDORSE Bush you'll get wheelbarrows full of government cash and a visit every other day for a faith-based photo op by some war mongering dickhead Republican who is trying to mask his crimes. If you actually apply what Jesus said to the war you ARE TARGETED, just like everyone else. I suppose Martin Luther King would be under this same scrutiny. Morals and values, Republican style. Here ya go artie, according to what you've said the Clintons used the IRS so it must be OK.

Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning


# All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.

By Patricia Ward Biederman and Jason Felch, Times Staff Writers

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.


In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."


AND THEY ARE.

As Bacon spoke, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a co-celebrant of Sunday's Requiem Eucharist, looked on.

"We are so careful at our church never to endorse a candidate," Bacon said in a later interview.

"One of the strongest sermons I've ever given was against President Clinton's fraying of the social safety net."

Telephone calls to IRS officials in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles were not returned.

On a day when churches throughout California took stands on both sides of Proposition 73, which would bar abortions for minors unless parents are notified, some at All Saints feared the politically active church had been singled out.

"I think obviously we were a bit shocked and dismayed," said Bob Long, senior warden for the church's oversight board. "We felt somewhat targeted."

Bacon said the church had retained the services of a Washington law firm with expertise in tax-exempt organizations.

And he told the congregation: "It's important for everyone to understand that the IRS concerns are not supported by the facts."

After the initial inquiry, the church provided the IRS with a copy of all literature given out before the election and copies of its policies, Bacon said.

But the IRS recently informed the church that it was not satisfied by those materials, and would proceed with a formal examination. Soon after that, church officials decided to inform the congregation about the dispute.

In an October letter to the IRS, Marcus Owens, the church's tax attorney and a former head of the IRS tax-exempt section, said, "It seems ludicrous to suggest that a pastor cannot preach about the value of promoting peace simply because the nation happens to be at war during an election season."

Owens said that an IRS audit team had recently offered the church a settlement during a face-to-face meeting.

"They said if there was a confession of wrongdoing, they would not proceed to the exam stage. They would be willing not to revoke tax-exempt status if the church admitted intervening in an election."

The church declined the offer.


Long said Bacon "is fond of saying it's a sin not to vote, but has never told anyone how to vote. We don't do that. We preach to people how to vote their values, the biblical principles."


Regas, who was rector of All Saints from 1967 to 1995, said in an interview that he was surprised by the IRS action "and then I became suspicious, suspicious that they were going after a progressive church person."

Regas helped the current church leadership collect information for the IRS on his sermon and the church's policies on involvement in political campaigns.

Some congregants were upset that a sermon citing Jesus Christ's championing of peace and the poor was the occasion for an IRS probe.

"I'm appalled," said 70-year-old Anne Thompson of Altadena, a professional singer who also makes vestments for the church.

"In a government that leans so heavily on religious values, that they would pull a stunt like this, it makes me heartsick."

Joe Mirando, an engineer from Burbank, questioned whether the 3,500-member church would be under scrutiny if it were not known for its activism and its liberal stands on social issues.

"The question is, is it politically motivated?" he said. "That's the underlying feeling of everyone here. I don't have enough information to make a decision, but there's a suspicion."


Bacon revealed the IRS investigation at both morning services. Until his announcement, the mood of the congregation had been solemn because the services remembered, by name, those associated with the church who had died since last All Saints Day.

Regas' 2004 sermon imagined how Jesus would admonish Bush and Kerry if he debated them. Regas never urged parishioners to vote for one candidate over the other, but he did say that he believes Jesus would oppose the war in Iraq, and that Jesus would be saddened by Bush's positions on the use and testing of nuclear weapons.

In the sermon, Regas said, "President Bush has led us into war with Iraq as a response to terrorism. Yet I believe Jesus would say to Bush and Kerry: 'War is itself the most extreme form of terrorism. President Bush, you have not made dramatically clear what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.' "

Later, he had Jesus confront both Kerry and Bush: "I will tell you what I think of your war: The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. God loathes war."

If Jesus debated Bush and Kerry, Regas said, he would say to them, "Why is so little mentioned about the poor?''

In his own voice, Regas said: ''The religious right has drowned out everyone else. Now the faith of Jesus has come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American…. I'm not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child."

When you go into the voting booth, Regas told the congregation, "take with you all that you know about Jesus, the peacemaker. Take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest values."


Owens, the tax attorney, said he was surprised that the IRS is pursuing the case despite explicit statements by Regas that he was not trying to influence the congregation's vote.

"I doubt it's politically motivated," Owens said. ""I think it is more a case of senior management at IRS not paying attention to what the rules are."

According to Owens, six years ago the IRS used to send about 20 such letters to churches a year. That number has increased sharply because of the agency's recent delegation of audit authority to agents on the front lines, he said.

He knew of two other churches, both critical of government policies, that had received similar letters, Owens said.

It's unclear how often the IRS raises questions about the tax-exempt status of churches.

While such action is rare, the IRS has at least once revoked the charitable designation of a church.

Shortly before the 1992 presidential election, a church in Binghamton, N.Y., ran advertisements against Bill Clinton's candidacy, and the tax agency ruled that the congregation could not retain its tax-exempt status because it had intervened in an election.

Bacon said he thought the IRS would eventually drop its case against All Saints.

"It is a social action church, but not a politically partisan church," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-al...2&track=tothtml
davisął
House OK of faith-based hiring poses threat to Head Start

November 7, 2005

BY LONNIE NASATIR AND DANIEL ELBAUM
Advertisement


Last month, the United States House of Representatives voted that you could be hired or fired solely because of your religion if you work with a Head Start program. This bill, which heads to the Senate, would not only legalize a form of religious discrimination, but jeopardizes a historic program that serves almost 1 million children nationwide and almost 40,000 in Illinois.

In 2004, Head Start programs employed more than 200,000 people and had 1.3 million volunteers in 48,000 classrooms nationwide. Their mission could not be more noble or less controversial -- to increase the school readiness of young children in low-income families. This program has always received widespread bipartisan support and has been held up time and time again as a classic example of a successful government program.

Under current federal law, as a condition of accepting federal funds, all Head Start programs, including those housed in churches and other religious institutions, are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion both in hiring and service delivery. Earlier this year, the House Education and Workforce Committee approved the Head Start reauthorization by a unanimous bipartisan vote of 48-0 -- retaining the existing civil rights and anti-discrimination provisions.

Yet these days, no piece of legislation is safe from those determined to impose their own set of religious and moral beliefs on the rest of the nation in the name of religious freedom. The week after the unanimous vote, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) stated the prohibition against using religion as a basis for hiring creates an atmosphere in which faith-based organizations were being "pressured to surrender their religious identities." In introducing the religious discrimination amendment, Boehner described the current Head Start law as a "slap in the face to religious organizations across America."

A week before the House vote, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) employed the unseemly and misleading tactic of invoking Hurricane Katrina and arguing that a vote against the amendment was an insult to the faith-based groups that had immediately provided assistance to the ravaged Gulf Coast communities.

No one would deny the invaluable role that faith-based institutions have played in addressing many of our nation's most-pressing social needs. Government-funded partnerships with religiously affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Community Federations and Lutheran Social Services, for example, have helped combat poverty and provide housing, education and health care services for those in need. However, these programs do not use religious criteria in the hiring and firing of staff, the way private religious organizations are generally allowed to under the law.

If the Senate also approves the amendment, teachers and staff working at Head Start programs housed in religious organizations could immediately be given pink slips because of their religion. Programs housed in religious facilities would have the right to post wanted ads and issue job applications saying Christians, Jews or Muslims "need not apply." Tens of thousands of already at-risk children could lose their teachers, with whom they have formed emotional bonds. In addition, Head Start could lose thousands of parent volunteers essential to the success of the program merely because those parents do not share the religious beliefs of the host religious organization.


Ironically, proponents of this change have highlighted the fact that the existing reauthorization bill will improve teacher quality by ensuring that a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early-childhood development. Yet unless the Senate rejects the discrimination amendment, religious affiliation and belief may trump merit as a hiring criteria.

Anti-discrimination laws have helped to protect religious freedom in this great and diverse nation, and religious communities have made extraordinary contributions to the Head Start program while abiding by its prohibition against discrimination. Government-sanctioned discrimination in federally funded programs like Head Start will only undermine the equality and religious freedom of all Americans and turn back the clock on our nation's hard-won civil rights advances.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref07.html
Repub_Bub
QUOTE(davisął @ Nov 8 2005, 01:25 AM)
House OK of faith-based hiring poses threat to Head Start

Jeez....your avatar is the most representative of any on the board. I can actually see you doing the dopey davey dipshit dance as you press the submit button for each of your mindless rants.

judy
A war of values, not religion

By Jeff Jacoby

The Prince of Wales was at the White House last week, hoping, the Daily Telegraph reported, ''to convince President Bush of the merits of Islam . . . because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since Sept. 11, 2001."
user posted image


This is a drum Prince Charles has been beating for years. In 1993, for example, he scolded those in the West who peddled ''unthinking prejudices" about Muslim culture — for example, ''that sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric, and unjust." Two months after 9/11, he was lambasting the American attitude toward Islam as ''too confrontational."


More to Charles's liking, presumably, would be something more conciliatory and politically correct. Something like this:


''The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women, and children are followers of a violent ideology very different from the religion of Islam. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision. . . . Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity."


If that's the way Charles thinks Bush ought to speak about Islam, I have good news for him: It is. Those were Bush's words. He spoke them on Oct. 17 at the fifth annual White House ''iftaar" dinner during the Muslim month of Ramadan. He praised the ''countless acts of kindness" that followed the recent earthquake in Kashmir. ''For the first time in our nation's history," he said to applause, ''we have added the Koran to the White House library."


Too intolerant? Considering that America is at war with the forces of Islamofascism, and that for 25 years Americans have been attacked or killed by radical Muslim terrorists, the president's words about Islam were remarkably benign and uncritical.


As indeed they have been since 9/11, when he went out of his way to proclaim the peacefulness of Islam — sometimes in the company of Muslim leaders whose history has been far from peaceful.


Of course, it goes without saying that most Muslims are not terrorists. Of course many people professing Islam are compassionate and generous. Of course Islam should not be gratuitously insulted. But neither should it be sugar-coated or kowtowed to. Yet too many Western elites are unwilling to speak plainly about the problems within Islam itself, or to hold Muslim culture to what should be universal standards of decency and justice. Far from being ''too confrontational" in their attitude toward Islam, they have been too indulgent and deferential, careful never to say anything that might be deemed insensitive. One result has been an increase in extremist behavior: Witness the ''Eurofada" raging in the streets of Paris.


We do Muslims no favors by excusing attitudes or practices that ought always to be deemed inexcusable. In Australia's Victoria state, the Herald Sun reported recently, police have been issued a ''religious diversity handbook" that advises them ''to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits." The Australian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau's handbook provides guidelines for modifying police procedures to accommodate minority sensibilities.


Sikhs, for example, ''should not be disturbed" when reading their holy scriptures, a practice that normally takes 50 hours. Photographing Aborigines is discouraged, since it might raise fears of ''sorcery and spiritual mischief." And Muslim wife-beaters should be treated with kid gloves, in deference to Islamic norms. ''In incidents such as domestic violence," the handbook instructs, ''police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life, and habits of Muslims."


Could anything more perfectly capture the moral bankruptcy of multicultural relativism? The Koran may tolerate wife-beating (Sura 4:34: ''As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them"), but why on earth should Australia?


''All Muslim husbands are not wife-beaters," remarks Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam, ''and it is condescending and irresponsible . . . to give those who are a free pass, instead of denouncing the practice unequivocally and calling upon Muslim men to heed the better angels of their nature." In much the same way, he says, the West's unwillingness to ''confront the elements of Islam that jihad terrorists use to justify violence, for fear of offending moderate Muslims, " ends up undercutting the ability of those very moderates to demand reform from within.


The war against radical Islam is above all a war of values — the values of liberty, equality, and human dignity against the values of jihad. The jihadis don't hesitate to proclaim their values. We must not be shy about defending ours.

Jeff Jacoby
judy
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 7 2005, 11:04 PM)
Jeez....your avatar is the most representative of any on the board. I can actually see you doing the dopey davey dipshit dance as you press the submit button for each of your mindless rants.
[right][snapback]147773[/snapback][/right]


He got rid of his can of gasoline when the price got too high for him.
roserose
Oh come on Judy break it up.
judy
QUOTE(roserose @ Nov 7 2005, 11:26 PM)
Oh come on Judy break it up.
[right][snapback]147787[/snapback][/right]

What are you talking about?
Bee
Hooray!

The return of common sense.

QUOTE
School Board
Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 9, 2005

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html


The People of Dover, PA have spoken.

smile.gif
Bee
And so have a handful of zealots in Kansas.

QUOTE
Kansas Board Approves Challenges to Evolution

By JODI WILGOREN
Published: November 9, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 - The fiercely split Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 on Tuesday to adopt new science standards that are the most far-reaching in the nation in challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in the classroom.

The standards move beyond the broad mandate for critical analysis of evolution that four other states have established in recent years, by recommending that schools teach specific points that doubters of evolution use to undermine its primacy in science education.

Among the most controversial changes was a redefinition of science itself, so that it would not be explicitly limited to natural explanations.

The vote was a watershed victory for the emerging movement of intelligent design, which posits that nature alone cannot explain life's complexity. John G. West of the Discovery Institute, a conservative research organization that promotes intelligent design, said Kansas now had "the best science standards in the nation."

A leading defender of evolution, Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education, said she feared that the standards would become a "playbook for creationism."

The vote came six years after Kansas shocked the scientific and political world by stripping its curriculum standards of virtually any mention of evolution, a move reversed in 2001 after voters ousted several conservative members of the education board.

A new conservative majority took hold in 2004 and promptly revived arguments over the teaching of evolution. The ugly and highly personal nature of the debate was on display at the Tuesday meeting, where board members accused one other of dishonesty and disingenuousness.

"This is a sad day, not just for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," Janet Waugh of Kansas City, Kan., one of four dissenting board members, said before the vote. "We're becoming a laughingstock not only of the nation but of the world."

Ms. Waugh and her allies contended that the board's majority was improperly injecting religion into biology classrooms. But supporters of the new standards said they were simply trying to open the curriculum, and students' minds, to alternative viewpoints.

There is little debate among mainstream scientists over evolution's status as the bedrock of biology, but a small group of academics who support intelligent design have fervently pushed new critiques of Darwin's theory in recent years.

Kenneth Willard, a board member from Hutchinson, said, "I'm very pleased to be maybe on the front edge of trying to bring some intellectual honesty and integrity to the science classroom rather than asking students to check their questions at the door because it is a challenge to the sanctity of evolution."

Steve E. Abrams of Arkansas City, the board chairman and chief sponsor of the new standards, said that requiring consideration of evolution's critics "absolutely teaches more about science."

The board approved the standards pending editing to comply with a demand from two national science groups that their copyrighted material be removed from the standards document because of its approach to evolution.

When Sue Gamble, a board member opposed to the standards, questioned the wisdom of voting on an unfinished document, calling it "a pig in a poke," Mr. Abrams dismissed the concern, saying, "It's immaterial because you're not going to vote for it anyway."

Indeed, when it was time to raise hands, the four self-described moderate board members cast nay ballots in unison.

Their protest was echoed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, who called the vote "the latest in a series of troubling decisions" by the board.

"If we're going to continue to bring high-tech jobs to Kansas and move our state forward," Ms. Sebelius said in a statement, "we need to strengthen science standards, not weaken them. Stronger public schools ought to be the mission of the Board of Education, and it's time they got down to the real business of strengthening Kansas schools."

Kansas' move comes a week after the conclusion of a trial in which parents sued the school board in Dover, Pa., over the district's inclusion of intelligent design in the ninth-grade biology curriculum. The two debates have led a swell of evolution skirmishes in 20 states this year.

Local school districts in Kansas, as in most states, choose textbooks and set the curriculum, but the standards provide a blueprint by outlining what will be covered on state science tests, given every other year in grades 4, 7 and 10. The new standards emerged as part of a routine review and would take effect in 2007, presuming next year's elections do not shift the balance on the board and result in another reversal.

Though the standards do not specifically require or prohibit discussion of intelligent design, they adopt much of the movement's language, mentioning gaps in the fossil record and a lack of evidence for the "primordial soup" as ideas that students should consider.

The other states that call for critical analysis of evolution - Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania - do so only in broad strokes, in some cases as part of a standard scientific process.

"They've given a green light to any creationist throughout the state to bring these issues into the classroom," said Jack Krebs, a Kansas science teacher and dissenting member of the standards-writing committee. "Science teachers are not prepared for that discussion and don't want it, because they've got plenty of science to teach."

John Calvert, a lawyer who runs the Intelligent Design Network, based in Kansas, praised the board as "taking a very courageous step" that would "make science education interesting to students rather than boring."

In the standing-room-only crowd in the small board room for Tuesday's session were two dozen high school students fulfilling an assignment for government class by attending the public meeting. They shook their heads at the decision.

"We're glad we're seniors," said Hannah Teeter, 17, from Shawnee Mission West, a high school in Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City. "I feel bad for all the kids that are younger than us that they have to be taught things that aren't science in science class."


From the mouths of babes.
Billy Pilgrim
What I don't understand is how these morons can say that evolution is a load of bunk, yet every time the farmers in their state(s) turn around, there is some type of insectual blight on their crops that "mutates" (evolves) an immunity to the insecticides that are used to kill them.

Isn't that proof of evolution? Or is God intelligently RE-designing His bugs every 3 years, or so? How "intelligent" is that?

cool.gif
Bee
Point. cool.gif
Repub_Bub
QUOTE(Billy Pilgrim @ Nov 9 2005, 12:34 PM)
What I don't understand is how these morons can say that evolution is a load of bunk, yet every time the farmers in their state(s) turn around, there is some type of insectual blight on their crops that "mutates" (evolves) an immunity to the insecticides that are used to kill them.

Isn't that proof of evolution? Or is God intelligently RE-designing His bugs every 3 years, or so? How "intelligent" is that?

cool.gif
[right][snapback]148375[/snapback][/right]

You seem to be suggesting that the mutation of insects illustrates the absence of an intelligent God....how intelligent is that?
judy
QUOTE(Billy Pilgrim @ Nov 9 2005, 08:34 AM)
What I don't understand is how these morons can say that evolution is a load of bunk, yet every time the farmers in their state(s) turn around, there is some type of insectual blight on their crops that "mutates" (evolves) an immunity to the insecticides that are used to kill them.

Isn't that proof of evolution? Or is God intelligently RE-designing His bugs every 3 years, or so? How "intelligent" is that?

cool.gif
[right][snapback]148375[/snapback][/right]

Ask Bee, she thinks caterpillers evolve into butterflies.
user posted image
Billy Pilgrim
QUOTE(judy @ Nov 9 2005, 08:32 AM)
Ask Bee, she thinks caterpillers evolve into butterflies.
user posted image
[right][snapback]148420[/snapback][/right]


And I think Barts de-volve into Judys.

B
I
T
C
H
.
davisął
There was a fear the education system in Kansas would be considered deficient. The zealots have guaranteed that. Hope it doesn't affect the college prospects of their children.

Hey Nom, what do you think?
davisął
You can only devolve so far.
Mizilus
QUOTE(Billy Pilgrim @ Nov 9 2005, 04:34 AM)
What I don't understand is how these morons can say that evolution is a load of bunk, yet every time the farmers in their state(s) turn around, there is some type of insectual blight on their crops that "mutates" (evolves) an immunity to the insecticides that are used to kill them.

Isn't that proof of evolution? Or is God intelligently RE-designing His bugs every 3 years, or so? How "intelligent" is that?

cool.gif
[right][snapback]148375[/snapback][/right]



Along the same lines in this recent bird flu hysteria we keep hearing how some farmer with the "regular flu" contracts some strain of the bird flu and then the two flu's swap genetic material thereby making it easier to contract and gestate in humans.

Personally I prefer that explanation to the donning of sackcloth and self flagellation and the admission that "God is punishing us because gays are getting married."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.