In the News

[Marc]

Bush's Faith Based National Parks (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair12222003.html)

At the Grand Canyon plaques quoting Psalms are placed at lookout sites. The bookstore is made to carry creationist explinations for the canyon, and rangers are prevented from publishing rebuttals.

At the Lincoln Memorial where a film shows the history of civil protests at the Mall are made to edit out anti vietnam war, gay rights, and pro choice protests. But then are made to include protests that did not happen there, like anti-abortion, and Promiskeeper rallies. Oh, and pro-gulf war demonstraton? :confused:


White House defends Pledge (http://www.charleston.net/stories/122003/wor_20pledge.shtml)
"The reference to a 'nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is an official and patriotic acknowledgment of what all students -- Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist -- may properly be taught in the public schools," the administration argued in its 63-page filing. :nope:


and something not involving the Pres
church members stake out strip clubs and adult book stores (http://www.wfaa.com/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa031222_jml_6shops.ca9cba6d.html)

They take down the licence plates of people going to these establishments, find their addresses and send them invites to their church.
"Our plan is to mail these cards to their house," Norwood said. "Let them know there's something other than sex businesses in their neighborhood." He's concerned that customers at these places are sex addicts who need counseling. He said his aim is to help, not embarrass.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Marc
...
and something not involving the Pres
church members stake out strip clubs and adult book stores (http://www.wfaa.com/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa031222_jml_6shops.ca9cba6d.html)

They take down the licence plates of people going to these establishments, find their addresses and send them invites to their church."Our plan is to mail these cards to their house," Norwood said. "Let them know there's something other than sex businesses in their neighborhood." He's concerned that customers at these places are sex addicts who need counseling. He said his aim is to help, not embarrass.
If you want to help sex addicts, invite them to your church orgies.

[daenku32]

If people can't see the blatant establishment of Bush's religion in the US after reading these articles, then nothing will.

Bush will teach 'God' to my son over my dead body.

[Tony]

They can take my anti-religiousness when they pry it from my cold dead hands. :)

[Zero]

Bush is a phony pseudo-Christian...not only is his perspective on the 1st Amendment based on pure nonsense, his understanding of his own faith is warped.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
his understanding of his own faith is warped.

How do you know?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


How do you know? Well, take a look at this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32946) which I found interesting(ignore the nutty WorldNetDaily spin on it, it was the quickest link I could find)...he's a Methodist, but his behavior and policies don't match the Church's principles, including conservation, helping your fellow man, and belonging to the greater world community. The Methodists have a long tradition of being rather active in social causes. The specific brand of 'conservative' that Bush claims to be is in direct opposition to many of the Methodist principles.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, take a look at this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32946) which I found interesting(ignore the nutty WorldNetDaily spin on it, it was the quickest link I could find)...he's a Methodist, but his behavior and policies don't match the Church's principles, including conservation, helping your fellow man, and belonging to the greater world community. The Methodists have a long tradition of being rather active in social causes. The specific brand of 'conservative' that Bush claims to be is in direct opposition to many of the Methodist principles.

So you would want him to play lackey to one particular group in general? You're advocating that he stick soley within his own beliefs and ignore others as a leader.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, take a look at this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32946) which I found interesting(ignore the nutty WorldNetDaily spin on it, it was the quickest link I could find)...he's a Methodist, but his behavior and policies don't match the Church's principles, including conservation, helping your fellow man, and belonging to the greater world community. The Methodists have a long tradition of being rather active in social causes. The specific brand of 'conservative' that Bush claims to be is in direct opposition to many of the Methodist principles.


No true Scotsman? Al Gore and Jimmy carter hold many positions that are in oppostion to Baptist doctrine, does that mean they REALLY are not baptists?


And this:

including conservation, helping your fellow man, and belonging to the greater world community.

Is wrong. This is just a characture of Bush. If Bush was really against conservation, helping your fellow man and belonging to the greater world community, he would be a very different leader.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



No true Scotsman? Al Gore and Jimmy carter hold many positions that are in oppostion to Baptist doctrine, does that mean they REALLY are not baptists?


And this:



Is wrong. This is just a characture of Bush. If Bush was really against conservation, helping your fellow man and belonging to the greater world community, he would be a very different leader. 'Different' isn't the word I would use, but he is just what I say. Mostly, he is pro-business, even when other concerns are forced to the side by business interests.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Troll


So you would want him to play lackey to one particular group in general? You're advocating that he stick soley within his own beliefs and ignore others as a leader.

Perhaps the point was, since Bush is already injecting religion into his role as national leader, it is curious why the particular brand of relgiion and his stances on various matters do not jive with his stated religious sect.

To take the example of Jimy Carter as a baptist, perhaps not all his policies are consistent with the principals of Baptist religion, but then he did not seem to mix religion in with the presidency nearly as much as Bush in the first place.

[Random]

Originally posted by Tony


If Bush was really against conservation, helping your fellow man and belonging to the greater world community, he would be a very different leader.

Erm... How, exactly?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tony
They can take my anti-religiousness when they pry it from my cold dead hands. :)

I don't see that as the biggest problem here: Doesn't the National Park Service have a responsibility to promote good science?

Putting a creationist text in the park service shops is lending them a credibility that they (probably) don't deserve.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Perhaps the point was, since Bush is already injecting religion into his role as national leader, it is curious why the particular brand of relgiion and his stances on various matters do not jive with his stated religious sect.

To take the example of Jimy Carter as a baptist, perhaps not all his policies are consistent with the principals of Baptist religion, but then he did not seem to mix religion in with the presidency nearly as much as Bush in the first place.

And you would be correct in saying that. But Zero seems to think it is a plausible argument against the man and any other that does not follow their belief to the letter while in office.

[Monketey Ghost]

Depressing. Depressing.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Troll


And you would be correct in saying that. But Zero seems to think it is a plausible argument against the man and any other that does not follow their belief to the letter while in office.

Oh really?
Zero seems to be pointing out obvious hypocrisy, nothing more.

If you still don't get it, Bush and co. are advocating religion without actually practicing it themselves.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Troll


And you would be correct in saying that. But Zero seems to think it is a plausible argument against the man and any other that does not follow their belief to the letter while in office. "Seems"? Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear: it is important only because Bush makes religion such a cornerstone of his public life. I'm absolutely sure that Clinton's faith was violated by his antics with Lewinsky, but his religious views didn't come into question because he didn't bring up God every other sentence in every speech he gave.

Bush has no respect for religious freedom, is the main point.

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Zero

Bush has no respect for religious freedom, is the main point.

There is a difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”. Bush may not agree with everything that comes down from the “church” he is a member of, but, he seems to be in line with the teachings of his faith. (ie. what Jesus taught)

Am I wrong? Please explain if you disagree.

boomer

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Zero

Bush has no respect for religious freedom, is the main point.

There is a difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”. Bush may not agree with everything that comes down from the “church” he is a member of, but, he seems to be in line with the teachings of his faith. (ie. what Jesus taught)

Am I wrong? Please explain if you disagree.

boomer

[Tony]

Originally posted by Random


Erm... How, exactly?


You're an intelligent person(?), I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Tony



You're an intelligent person(?), I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.


Indulge me with your wisdom.

boomer

[Random]

Originally posted by Tony



You're an intelligent person(?), I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

Well, I am afraid that you will have to spell it out for me.
What I have seen of Bush’s environmental policy so far reminds me of a villain out of a particularly implausible episode of Captain Planet. He has introduced some pollution bills with names like “Clean Skies” that either loosen existing regulations or do nothing. His few environmental initiatives that actually tighten up regulations are carefully crafted to cover companies that are going to be reducing their pollutants anyway. And he has been putting pressure on the EPA to not enforce existing pollution laws or prosecute offenders.
I have seen no evidence that he cares for his fellow man, at least not that branch of humanity that earns less than $100K a year. No movement towards universal health care, no movement towards treatment for drug addicts, only token tax breaks designed to make the tax breaks for the rich more palatable.
As for belonging to the world community, I am surprised he hasn’t nuked the UN.
How could he make these things any worse? Well, I guess we have eleven months to find out.

[Tony]

Originally posted by boomer6



Indulge me with your wisdom.

boomer


I don’t have the time nor the will to spoon-feed you, plus I am leaving work early today. You guys are going to have to be big boys and think it through for...*gasp*...yourselves.

I'll give you a head start, if Bush was against being part of the greater world community he would be pursuing a policy of isolationism. Now, I’m sure you can take the rest from there.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Random


Well, I am afraid that you will have to spell it out for me.
What I have seen of Bush’s environmental policy so far reminds me of a villain out of a particularly implausible episode of Captain Planet. He has introduced some pollution bills with names like “Clean Skies” that either loosen existing regulations or do nothing. His few environmental initiatives that actually tighten up regulations are carefully crafted to cover companies that are going to be reducing their pollutants anyway. And he has been putting pressure on the EPA to not enforce existing pollution laws or prosecute offenders.


Has he dismantled the EPA? Has he revoked every regulation designed to help the environment? No, his idea of conservation differs from your's. That's all.

No movement towards universal health care.

So only socalists care about their fellow man? Perhaps he is more concerned with preserving an american institution called freedom. Furthermore, that's not his nor the fed. governments job.

no movement towards treatment for drug addicts

That's not the president's job.

As for belonging to the world community, I am surprised he hasn’t nuked the UN.

You're surprised he hasn’t nuked an American city? Were you born a fool or was a quality you acquired?

[Soapy Sam]

Is Hillary still in NY?

[Random]

Originally posted by Tony


Has he dismantled the EPA? Has he revoked every regulation designed to help the environment? No, his idea of conservation differs from your's. That's all.


He still has to run his ideas by the American people occasionally. The laws have to be enacted by Senators and Congressmen who are elected by the voters. Just because he hasn’t abolished the EPA yet doesn’t mean it is not his fervent wish.


So only socalists care about their fellow man? Perhaps he is more concerned with preserving an american institution called freedom. Furthermore, that's not his nor the fed. governments job.


I’ve said it before but Ok…

Universal health care is socialism. So are police forces, fire departments, health and safety inspectors, the army, the navy, the air force, the federal highway administration, FEMA, the Coast Guard, NASA, the SEC, and the US Postal service. So what?
Government run, single-payer health care systems are run in many European countries. In most of these countries, individuals get more doctors visits, have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, pay less for medical care than we do, and everyone is insured. The continued success of the HMO industry in keeping Americans from realizing this is one of the greatest public relations feats of all time.



That's not the president's job.


Law enforcement is the president’s job. And every impartial study that anyone has made has shown that drug treatment programs are more effective in preventing crime, recidivism, and drug use than incarceration. And it’s cheaper to boot.


You're surprised he hasn’t nuked an American city? Were you born a fool or was a quality you acquired?

Admittedly, this was a bit of hyperbole on my part. He would probably be perfectly happy with wrecking balls, bulldozers, and conventional explosives.

Just because Bush hasn’t come out and said, “I have a bunch of nutball, wiggy right-wing ideas that will make the top one percent of Americans kings and the rest of you sickly, diseased slaves”, doesn’t mean that that is not the plan. Remember that Hitler didn’t start going round the pub circuit in the 20’s with, “I will abolish democracy, proclaim myself emperor, and shove a couple million people into ovens.” It took him decades of slowly turning up the heat to get up to that point.
Bush still has to at least pretend that he is not in the thrall of Satan, or he will not get re-elected next November (unless he can rig the vote that is). Therefore, he will not trot out his really bonkers ideas until it is too late to stop him.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Oh really?
Zero seems to be pointing out obvious hypocrisy, nothing more.

If you still don't get it, Bush and co. are advocating religion without actually practicing it themselves.

Advocating which religion? Oh, all of them. And he even supports some people that aren't religious. You're saying Bush isn't practicing religion? Do you mean that or did you just get hit with the "anything against Bush" hammer too many times? He's not advocating his personal religious choice and you want to hold that against him. Frankly I'm glad he's not advocating his and his alone due to the whole "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion of the First Amendment

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zero
"Seems"? Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear: it is important only because Bush makes religion such a cornerstone of his public life. I'm absolutely sure that Clinton's faith was violated by his antics with Lewinsky, but his religious views didn't come into question because he didn't bring up God every other sentence in every speech he gave.

Bush has no respect for religious freedom, is the main point.

No respect for religious freedom? He's getting crap from his own for supporting others that have differing views from them. Hell if he followed the Methodist doctrine while in office he'd be shunning the Catholics, Jewish, Baptists, Pagans, Wiccans and others, now wouldn't he? Naturally that would give the "anything against Bush" folks a lot more to fall back on since piece by piece they're finding they're old arguments being torn down.

I practice no religion and so far haven't felt pressured to because of anything Bush has done.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Random
Just because Bush hasn’t come out and said, “I have a bunch of nutball, wiggy right-wing ideas that will make the top one percent of Americans kings and the rest of you sickly, diseased slaves”, doesn’t mean that that is not the plan. Remember that Hitler didn’t start going round the pub circuit in the 20’s with, “I will abolish democracy, proclaim myself emperor, and shove a couple million people into ovens.” It took him decades of slowly turning up the heat to get up to that point.
Bush still has to at least pretend that he is not in the thrall of Satan, or he will not get re-elected next November (unless he can rig the vote that is). Therefore, he will not trot out his really bonkers ideas until it is too late to stop him.

Another irrational, Bush-hating kook. Man, this place has quite a collection...

[Troll]

Originally posted by BTox


Another irrational, Bush-hating kook. Man, this place has quite a collection...

Well Random is from a predominately liberal state so he may be confused as to how long Bush can stay in power. Hitler had decades, Bush can only have another 5 years total and then we get a new guy who can change things even more.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Random


He still has to run his ideas by the American people occasionally. The laws have to be enacted by Senators and Congressmen who are elected by the voters. Just because he hasn’t abolished the EPA yet doesn’t mean it is not his fervent wish.



So you admit that Bush isnt against conservation. Unless you can read his mind?

Universal health care is socialism. So are police forces, fire departments, health and safety inspectors, the army, the navy, the air force, the federal highway administration, FEMA, the Coast Guard, NASA, the SEC, and the US Postal service. So what?
Government run, single-payer health care systems are run in many European countries. In most of these countries, individuals get more doctors visits, have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, pay less for medical care than we do, and everyone is insured. The continued success of the HMO industry in keeping Americans from realizing this is one of the greatest public relations feats of all time.

So? This doesnt address the issue. So far you havent been able to prove Bush doesnt care about his fellow man.

Law enforcement is the president’s job. And every impartial study that anyone has made has shown that drug treatment programs are more effective in preventing crime, recidivism, and drug use than incarceration. And it’s cheaper to boot.

That may be, but has congress passed a law requiring drug treatment programs? If not, then there is no law to enforce.

You still havent shown how this proves Bush doesnt care about his fellow man.

Just because Bush hasn’t come out and said, “I have a bunch of nutball, wiggy right-wing ideas that will make the top one percent of Americans kings and the rest of you sickly, diseased slaves”, doesn’t mean that that is not the plan. Remember that Hitler didn’t start going round the pub circuit in the 20’s with, “I will abolish democracy, proclaim myself emperor, and shove a couple million people into ovens.” It took him decades of slowly turning up the heat to get up to that point.
Bush still has to at least pretend that he is not in the thrall of Satan, or he will not get re-elected next November (unless he can rig the vote that is). Therefore, he will not trot out his really bonkers ideas until it is too late to stop him.


Bwahahahahah. This is paranoid woo-wooism at its funnyest. When Bush moves to outlaw guns (something the so-called "liberals" want) and dismantle congress, I'll say you have a point.

However, this still doesn’t show that Bush is against being a part of the bigger world community, and neither does being anti-UN. The UN is not the end all and be all of the world community. The fact that he formed a coalition outside the UN is proof enough he has at least a small desire to be part of the bigger world community.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by boomer6


There is a difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”. Bush may not agree with everything that comes down from the “church” he is a member of, but, he seems to be in line with the teachings of his faith. (ie. what Jesus taught)

Am I wrong? Please explain if you disagree.

boomer
What part of " what Jesus taught " , are you referring to?
The part about turning the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth and store not riches upon the earth ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Random



How could he make these things any worse? Well, I guess we have eleven months to find out.



Nehhhhh.. Probably more like 59...:D

[Random]

Originally posted by BTox


Another irrational, Bush-hating kook. Man, this place has quite a collection...

I am not an irrational Bush hater. I feel sorry for him more than anything else. He is a friendly, affable man who is not very bright, has never held a real job, has never had to worry about where his next meal is coming from, and has now been propped up into one of the most powerful positions in the world by an elite cadre of wealthy right-wingers. A position that he is simply unqualified for.
I hate the policies that he is convinced to press for, I hate the people who tell him what to do, and I hate that a huge portion of the population just can’t see what a shill this guy is. It gets hard sometimes to separate this hatred from my feelings for Bush, but I like to think that at the end of the day I can keep my feelings for Bush separate from his puppetmasters.

I do freely admit to being a kook though…

[Random]

Originally posted by Troll


Well Random is from a predominately liberal state so he may be confused as to how long Bush can stay in power. Hitler had decades, Bush can only have another 5 years total and then we get a new guy who can change things even more.

Five years. Right. Then his bosses will dust off another Bush to replace him. Jeb can be free in ’08. They just need someone with a friendly disposition and an ability to do what they are told.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Random


Five years. Right. Then his bosses will dust off another Bush to replace him. Jeb can be free in ’08. They just need someone with a friendly disposition and an ability to do what they are told.

Oh. So you're just against republicans in general?

[Random]

Originally posted by Troll


Oh. So you're just against republicans in general?

I am against mindless raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future.
I am against the warehousing of criminals with no consideration for how they became criminals and how we can prevent more from being created.
I am against the erosion of my civil liberties in a largely ineffective effort to "protect" me.
I am against putting America's blue collar workers on an "even playing field" with third world workers making fifty cents a day.
I am against shifting tax burdens from those that can afford it to those that cannot.
I am against legislating love.
I am against providing medical care only to those that can "afford it".
I am against killing innocent people in foreign countries simply because guilty people live in those same countries as well.

I am not against Republicans per se, but since this is the bulk of the GOP platform in a nutshell...

I am against abortion though.

Go figure.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Random


I am against mindless raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future.
I am against the warehousing of criminals with no consideration for how they became criminals and how we can prevent more from being created.
I am against the erosion of my civil liberties in a largely ineffective effort to "protect" me.
I am against putting America's blue collar workers on an "even playing field" with third world workers making fifty cents a day.
I am against shifting tax burdens from those that can afford it to those that cannot.
I am against legislating love.
I am against providing medical care only to those that can "afford it".
I am against killing innocent people in foreign countries simply because guilty people live in those same countries as well.

I am not against Republicans per se, but since this is the bulk of the GOP platform in a nutshell...

I am against abortion though.

Go figure.

I'm actually pro-abortion. So much so that there are some cases where I could understand aborting retoactively.

I'm about to eat, but I'll take issue with a few of your reasons and explain why later.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Random


I am against mindless .
I am against the warehousing of criminals with no consideration for how they became criminals and how we can prevent more from being created.
I am against the erosion of my civil liberties in a largely ineffective effort to "protect" me.
I am against putting America's blue collar workers on an "even playing field" with third world workers making fifty cents a day.
I am against shifting tax burdens from those that can afford it to those that cannot.
I am against legislating love.
I am against providing medical care only to those that can "afford it".
I am against killing innocent people in foreign countries simply because guilty people live in those same countries as well.

I am not against Republicans per se, but since this is the bulk of the GOP platform in a nutshell...

I am against abortion though.

Go figure.

I've got some issues with the extremity of some views mentioned but the biggest one is on the environment.

See I've always been big on conservation and proper land use. I like pristine forests and wetlands and waterways because I love to hunt and fish. So I really don't need to see dumps and pollution and urban sprawl in those areas. I like to hike and camp, and don't see the need for land to be closed off to people who want to enjoy the land and nature up close and personal. I beleive we do need to use natural resources until we can find viable, working substitues. I would rather my country be more self-supporting and not give money for products we currently have a need for to countries that give the money to people that want to kill me. I hate seeing my forests burn down.

I know the need to preserve our land, I know the need for resources, I know both can be accomplished with moderation, and responsible gathering of resources and treatment of the land.

Drilling in ANWR for our own oil is smart, not rape. The area needed is 2,000 to 5,000 , or less than .5% of the total area. There'd be little ecological disturbance if any.

Clearing dead growth and fire breaks is something that keeps fires from burning far more acres than we'd like them to.

Closing land to people who would seek to enjoy it is like putting a Dali in a museum that is never open.

Years ago in Southern California they built wind generators to raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future supply electricity and save us from having to mine for or buy imported oil for the same power. Then some birds flew into the blades and some extremists decided they still weren't happy because they couldn't have their utopia. They're at it again a little further north this time. This only shows me that there's no pleasing any of the people that take a fanatical stance on a subject.

So when you say the "raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future" I have to wonder if you really thought things out or are just using a Gore talking point.

The government is supposed to protect us, not mother us. there's hundreds of thousands of people in the medical and psychological fields of study out there that keep trying to figure out what made Bob kill 30 people, or Billy rape and torture 15 little girls, that's their job. When they finish their job and have an answer as to how to prevent Sam from killing his wife, then we can fix Sam before he does. Until then the reality is, all we can do is hope he never does and if he does, punish him in a way that keeps him from trying it again with someone else.

I'm sorry if the real world sucks.

[fishbob]

Putting a creationist text in the park service shops is lending them a credibility that they (probably) don't deserve. Huh? Who is lent any credibility?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What part of " what Jesus taught " , are you referring to?
The part about turning the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth and store not riches upon the earth ?

How about this part?
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by fishbob
Huh? Who is lent any credibility?

It's been a very long time since I've been at the Grand Canyon, but IIRC, there are two types of books sold at the gift shop: Books which feature lots of pretty pictures of the Grand Canyon, and books which have some educational value. You know, books about the history, geography and formation of Grand Canyon.

One would presume that this creationist text is being sold as an educational book. The National Park Service is betraying its educational mission by allowing crackpot theories to be sold in its bookstores.

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html

The National park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.
(emphasis mine)

[Random]

Originally posted by Troll


Years ago in Southern California they built wind generators to raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future supply electricity and save us from having to mine for or buy imported oil for the same power. Then some birds flew into the blades and some extremists decided they still weren't happy because they couldn't have their utopia. They're at it again a little further north this time. This only shows me that there's no pleasing any of the people that take a fanatical stance on a subject.

So when you say the "raping and denuding of our natural resources without the slightest consideration of the future" I have to wonder if you really thought things out or are just using a Gore talking point.


I have no problem with someone carefully weighing the pros and cons of something like windfarms and saying, “Renewable, pollution-free energy is worth some dead birds.” If the pros are worth the cons, then it should be done.
But certain parties in the extreme right-wing don’t weigh the pros and cons. They look at the pros, then go for it. The extreme left-wing is little better, looking at the cons and ignoring the pros. The problem is that these two factions have pretty much controlled the debate about the environment.
What I see in terms of debate in the media is just the extremes. On one side you have the wacko environmentalists who want to return the world to the pristine state it was in before naughty human beings figured out how to use opposable thumbs. On the other, you have big business and industry closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming, “THERE IS NO PROBLEM! THERE IS NO PROBLEM!”, over and over at the top of their lungs. Where is the middle ground exactly?

[daenku32]

Originally posted by boomer6


There is a difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”. Bush may not agree with everything that comes down from the “church” he is a member of, but, he seems to be in line with the teachings of his faith. (ie. what Jesus taught)

Am I wrong? Please explain if you disagree.

boomer

How does Bush's following of Christ make him any more respectful of religious freedom? He is making people who have no interest in God, to read about him. And based on the Pledge comments, make underaged children to recite a belief in one mindlessly and out of peer pressure.

[boomer6]

Originally posted by daenku32


How does Bush's following of Christ make him any more respectful of religious freedom? He is making people who have no interest in God, to read about him. And based on the Pledge comments, make underaged children to recite a belief in one mindlessly and out of peer pressure.

HE isn’t making anybody do a damn thing. But, if “they” force my children, who have no interest, to read how we evolved from monkeys, after crawling out from the ocean, after some magical explosion somewhere in space, creating something from nothing; Then why not teach that there is a “higher power”?

boomer

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by boomer6


HE isn’t making anybody do a damn thing. But, if “they” force my children, who have no interest, to read how we evolved from monkeys, after crawling out from the ocean, after some magical explosion somewhere in space, creating something from nothing; Then why not teach that there is a “higher power”?

boomer

Because one is a theory and the other is a fantasy story about some dude in the sky who likes to watch. If you don't enjoy evolutionary theory please try not to use the process of science that follow it and supports it; stop using microwaves, cell phones, medicine, TV, food (unless you grow your own)...essentially just go ahead and become fully Amish just to make sure your kids don't get "forced" to learn them science things.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by boomer6
But, if “they” force my children, who have no interest, to read how we evolved from monkeys, after crawling out from the ocean, after some magical explosion somewhere in space, creating something from nothing; Then why not teach that there is a “higher power”?In the spirit of the season: ho ho ho!

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What part of " what Jesus taught " , are you referring to?
The part about turning the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth and store not riches upon the earth ?

Turing the other cheek, at that time in Jewish history, if you broke the law (god’s law) you were punished for it. Jesus questioned if anyone was without sin. Because, no one is without sin, there was no reason to punish a man for braking god’s law because the one doing the punishing was guilty of breaking the law also. So, if someone stole from you or “screwed your wife” or walked up and slapped you, you should not then “return the favor in the name of god”. (the key, “in the name of god” rather then “personal revenge”)

Please do not think that Jesus was a “wimp”. Jesus did what he had to do. (Die for our sins). The bible tells me that he came as a lamb of god, but will return as the lion of Judah. And if we are to believe that god is the same yesterday, today and forever more, then we can see how serious god can be, and is toward sinners. David was told to go KILL goliath, as well as complete armies. Joshua was told to march around the walls and kill everybody (men, women, children, goats and everything else).


Please do not think that Jesus was “poor”. Jesus had money. He had a treasurer (Judas). Poor people do not have a treasurer, nor do they have a full time ministry with a full time staff. The bible tells me that “the world and the fullness therein is the lord’s.” (That does not sound poor to me.) The meek shall inherit the earth. The meek does not mean “poor”. Jesus told us that we would always have the poor. That does not mean “without money”. You can be without love and be poor in sprit. You can have poor health.

Store not riches upon earth. The bible tells me to “store up and fill our pantries”. “Riches” does not mean money necessarily. “Riches” means anything you value. Money CAN definitely fall into that category. But I tend to think that it applies to those people who believe that “the one who dies with the most toys, wins!” All the things you buy can not go with you. Rich people have a big responsibility. To whom much is given, much is required. Poor people have a hard time helping anybody. On the other hand, a couple of months ago bill gates wrote a 40 million dollar check to help people. As much as I might want to help people, I can’t write that check.

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Because one is a theory and the other is a fantasy story about some dude in the sky who likes to watch. If you don't enjoy evolutionary theory please try not to use the process of science that follow it and supports it; stop using microwaves, cell phones, medicine, TV, food (unless you grow your own)...essentially just go ahead and become fully Amish just to make sure your kids don't get "forced" to learn them science things.

Well then stop loving your children and family members, after all, the bible tells us not that god is some old man in the clouds, but rather “god is love”. I know that you can’t stick love in the lab and experiment with it, you can’t touch it, you can’t see it, but somehow I believe if you ever lost a love one you would believe in love. Because the pain would really hurt, and the tears run down your face are real that. We cant see love but we can see the effects of love. And though you might not be able to see god, we can see the effects of god.

If tomorrow images from the surface of Mars revealed a pyramid (small one) we would said “Damn. Intelligent life.” Why? Because out of chaos we see order. The same way we look for ETs. Radio telescopes record a sea of random junk from space, but if once we receive a PATTERN, we will declare it from an intelligent source.

Now, my 3 year old child can build a wooden block pyramid. (he is intelligent) so it only stands to reason that WE (organization in a chaotic universe) *side note- have you ever studied the human body? DNA? The HUMAN G-NOME? * came from something with intelligence. (more intelligence then we have.) Some thing/one designed all of this to work the way it works. There is not a lot on this planet that is random.

Just a thought, not proof.

boomer

[shecky]

Face it. Bush is woefully misguided when it comes to church/state issues. I have no idea if he's the ignoramus folks claim he is, but he doesn't so much to counter that notion.

The big question is how much can rational republicans take before they throw up in disgust?

[BTox]

Originally posted by shecky
The big question is how much can rational republicans take before they throw up in disgust?

I consider myself a rational republican. What's the issue here - I couldn't care less one way or the other.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by boomer6


Well then stop loving your children and family members, after all, the bible tells us not that god is some old man in the clouds, but rather “god is love”. I know that you can’t stick love in the lab and experiment with it, you can’t touch it, you can’t see it, but somehow I believe if you ever lost a love one you would believe in love. Because the pain would really hurt, and the tears run down your face are real that. We cant see love but we can see the effects of love. And though you might not be able to see god, we can see the effects of god.

If tomorrow images from the surface of Mars revealed a pyramid (small one) we would said “Damn. Intelligent life.” Why? Because out of chaos we see order. The same way we look for ETs. Radio telescopes record a sea of random junk from space, but if once we receive a PATTERN, we will declare it from an intelligent source.

Now, my 3 year old child can build a wooden block pyramid. (he is intelligent) so it only stands to reason that WE (organization in a chaotic universe) *side note- have you ever studied the human body? DNA? The HUMAN G-NOME? * came from something with intelligence. (more intelligence then we have.) Some thing/one designed all of this to work the way it works. There is not a lot on this planet that is random.

Just a thought, not proof.

boomer

I like your last paragraph, it shows still think for yourself even though your conclusion is still a bit flawed. You see a little bit of order in almost infinite chaos and you make more assumptions than a sci-fi novel; you don't look at things and come up with a conclusion you use your conclusion to reason out why things are the way they are. You don't like the big bang theory but you'll gladly use your cell phone and a microwave ignoring how the technology proves the theory.


P.S. Isn't the whole point of your religion is that you have to have faith not try to prove things?

[shecky]

Originally posted by BTox


I consider myself a rational republican. What's the issue here - I couldn't care less one way or the other.

This is exacly the spineless attitude I'd expect from a true believer. Unwilling to stand up to reason in the cause of the party line.

[BTox]

Originally posted by shecky


This is exacly the spineless attitude I'd expect from a true believer. Unwilling to stand up to reason in the cause of the party line.

Stand up to reason? If only you knew how to reason...

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I like your last paragraph, it shows still think for yourself even though your conclusion is still a bit flawed. You see a little bit of order

I hardly call this planet and everything on it “a little order”.

Originally posted by Grammatron


in almost infinite chaos and you make more assumptions than a sci-fi novel;

My assumptions are no more or less correct then the "best guess" of scientists who do not know, but only theorize.

Originally posted by Grammatron


you don't look at things and come up with a conclusion you use your conclusion to reason out why things are the way they are.


I do look at things and come up with a conclusion, not the other way around. For example: I know that a computer network with Cisco routers and switches can create a great network. It will work the way it is supposed to. It will route packets and frames as needed, even in the event of a break in the network. I also know that to look at a computer network and ask “how did this come to exist?” is a stupid question. It is even more stupid to say “well I don’t know how it came to be, but because alot of the elements are found in it, it must have evolved. I don’t know how it evolved, but because I can’t figure it out, it must have come from some big explosion, that scattered all of these elements, and they came together to form a computer network.”

The fact that I can design and build a network, “fits” nice and neatly into the world of science. It only makes sense that there is intelligent life behind a computer network. No scientist would question that. So why is it that scientists question intelligent life behind the human nervous system? (a network that is not only more efficient than a computer network but can also, to some degree, repair itself when it has a break down, and has been around since before we, in our infinite wisdom, where even self-aware?)

Originally posted by Grammatron


You don't like the big bang theory but you'll gladly use your cell phone and a microwave ignoring how the technology proves the theory.

Actually I believe in the big bang theory, but not because scientists say so. How can you get something out of nothing? Or, how can you get life out of nothing (no life)?

I take a few corn seeds, and some inert dirt. Now, neither of these things have “life”. The seeds have been stored in a plastic bag in my closet.( for years) The seeds take nothing in, and produce nothing. They are dead. The dirt is dead (inert). Now I plant the dead seeds into the dead dirt, and then place some H2O on it (also “dead”) and with in two weeks I have a little stalk of corn coming out. “AMAZING!” life from death. A “BIG BANG” just took place. Well, maybe a little bang, but still something amazing.

I don’t see how technology proves the theory; quite the opposite in my opinion. I sometimes wonder why man has been so slow on the “up-take”. A few weeks ago I flew on an airplane. The man next to me said “technology sure is great.” I agreed. However, 2 thousand years ago man could have looked up and seen that heavier then air object could fly. So why did it take so long to build an airplane? Why is it that there is intelligence behind an airplane and not a bird? Man still can’t build a machine that flies like a humming bird or a bumble be. Nor, can man build a computer that can compete “pound for pound” with the human mind. (and think about it, I don’t have to plug my head into the wall to power it up.) It amazes me that man will puff his chest up and said “look at the technology that our mind has come up with. Aren’t we so smart?” yet when forced to look at technology that is far superior to theirs they say “oh that, oh that just happened, bang, no intelligence there.”

Originally posted by Grammatron

P.S. Isn't the whole point of your religion is that you have to have faith not try to prove things?

Not really, to me my religion is about a relationship with "god". As a child (like a child) to learn and grow, not just spiritual but technically too. To learn not only the how but the why. The reason behind everything. My goal is not to push “god” or my beliefs on anyone, but to learn, think and question why someone believes the way they do. Weather they have a good argument or not, I listen and keep an open mind to the different POSSIBILITIES.

boomer

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by boomer6
My assumptions are no more or less correct then the "best guess" of scientists who do not know, but only theorize.Are you aware of what the term "theorize" means?I take a few corn seeds, and some inert dirt. Now, neither of these things have “life”.Not quite. The seeds have been stored in a plastic bag in my closet.( for years) The seeds take nothing in, and produce nothing. They are dead.Not quite.The dirt is dead (inert). Now I plant the dead seeds into the dead dirt, and then place some H2O on it (also “dead”)...So water is "dead?" Not quite.I sometimes wonder why man has been so slow on the “up-take”. A few weeks ago I flew on an airplane. The man next to me said “technology sure is great.” I agreed. However, 2 thousand years ago man could have looked up and seen that heavier then air object could fly. So why did it take so long to build an airplane? Why is it that there is intelligence behind an airplane and not a bird?A bird is organic. And it wasn't just (as in either merely or recently) "built."

And BTW, your misstatement "we evolved from monkeys" is just that. Homo sapiens and other primates evolved from a common ancestor.

(Bolding emphasis mine.)

[TillEulenspiegel]

***IDIOT PATROL ALERT!************IDIOT PATROL ALERT!***

This just in:
The idiot in the White House was dealt a setback in his "Clean Skies" act. A three judge court issues an injunction on several aspects of the <coff..coff> environmental policy of the Bush administration. The suit brought by New York and 11 other states as well as several environmental organizations succeeded because as the opinion on the court states " The implementation of the act would clearly cause irreparable harm to the environment.

Now we return you to your regular rancor.




P.S This is not the place for a science VS creation science ( an oxymoron) debate. Plz take it to the R-P forum. Thank You

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
P.S This is not the place for a science VS creation science ( an oxymoron) debate. Plz take it to the R-P forum. Thank You I agree that off-topic thread drift is undesirable, but it is often unavoidable.

When I see a smoldering campfire my impulse is to put it out rather than move it first. :)