Mickey

Based on that vague spritual gobbledygook of a definition of science, everything is science. Lets be specific as to what we are talking about here. Do you think that the teachings of the judeo-christian faith, in particular its creation myth/metaphor/fact (depending on your view) should be taught in science classes in a public schools? If so, which ones? If not all such teachings, which shouldn't be and why? What creation myths/facts/metaphors of what other religions should also be taught in science class and which should be excluded and why? Since the search for answers is the key for you, can we require the kids to learn the case for atheism in science class as well?

I think it is a great idea to teach that murder is wrong and that isn't effected by the fact that it is in the bible. However, I would object to teaching that murder is wrong in a science class. That holds true on a broad spectrum of moral issues but has nothing to do with the debate here which is about teaching non-science in science class. As for the science in the bible that is correct, I don't think anyone is arguing that such science, like "there a lots of stars", shouldn't be taught simply because it is not only found in science textbooks verified by experiments, etc and is also in the bible. The problem is teaching genesis in a science class. It is not science. Not my opinion, that is the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and every scientific organization around. It is overwhelming. In fact, even you have stated that you agree that it shouldn't be taught in science class. Do you really believe that or are you just saying that to avoid having to defend a losing argument? I don't understand why you say that and yet unfailingly pop up with posts like this when the subject arises to the contrary. Once and for all, do you think the biblical story of genesis, whether referred to as "creationism" or dressed up as "intelligent design" should or should not be taught in science class as a valid scientific alternative to evolution?

Its not illegal. If you let them do it, they can do it, if you don't, they can refuse you a room if that is their policy. NY does have a law regarding public accomodations but it addresses discrimation such as refusing to serve a meal to a person in a restaurant based on race or religion. I doubt there is anything in it that could be stretched to cover this.

I think I can believe in God and yet still think Pat Robertson is a dillweed for calling for the assassination of a foreign leader, blaming homosexuals for 9-11 and threatening Dover with divine apathy should disaster befall them because they decided to elect a new school board. I think that when I die, God is likely to welcome me to heaven because of my criticism of false prophets and messengers like Pat Robertson than in spite of it. As for religious folks having more moxie, maybe during the time of Nero but not any more. If you want to see moxie, check out atheists in the bible belt, surrounded by people and a culture that can't seem to nail a good parking space at the mall without thanking God for it. Yeah, it takes a lot of guts to be religious in a land with churches on every corner. The re-casting of religious people, a supermajority, as some sort of embattled minority is comical.

Why is someone a religious bigot for calling bad science "dumb"? A scientific position is not a religion and is not a race and is not a sex. Stupid science is stupid and if the people who accept stupid science are offended by being called stupid, then they should get out of science class and go back to church and pray for some brains.

That's not the case at all. A type of racism that has zero effect is wrong, but not really something to worry about now is it? White on black racism both historically and presently is far more of a problem than the reverse. Further, institutional racism only works when one race is in charge of all or most institutions of power. Historically and presently, just about every powerful institution whether it be a corporation, a bank or a police department are run by whites. Not all but certainly most, especially when you move away from large cities, the one area where minorities predominate. What is curious is the degree and frequency with which so many here complain about reverse discrimination, the least frequent and least effective discrimination out there. Also, the degree and frequency of complaints hereabouts as to false charges of racism are surprising. Comparing that with how often the same people express their outrage about genuine discrimination against blacks and other minorities, which is by far the bigger problem, is equally curious. As for "religious bigotry", I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think it is religious bigotry if one beleives the myths/facts of their religion are better than those of others. I don't think it is religious bigotry to take the position that there be no prayer, not a Hebrew prayer, a muslim prayer, a christian prayer etc, in school. I also see no bigotry in pointing out that from a scientific standpoint, intelligent design/creationism is ridiculous and that those who see scientific merit in them are fools. I wouldn't tread on anyone's creation myths in church but if they are going to make their faith their science or make their faith their politics, its fair game. Scientist who base their positions on facts, experiments and the like, are subject to rigorous examination and critique. They don't have the luxury of resisting criticism by lableing their critics as "religious bigots". I base my political positions based on the facts as best I understand them and the merits of initiatives, ballot measures and the like. My positions are open to criticism based on their merits or lack of same. I too do not have the luxury of roping off my positions from all criticism by calling my critics "religious bigots". Both political and scientific ideas are open to debate, examination and proof. If you are going to make your religious beliefs the basis for your political or scientific positions then you have to accept being held to the same standard as everyone else without whining about religious bigotry. Frankly, the alternative would be expressing favoritism, not bigotry, towards one religious view. Lastly, on the sexism thing, puhleeeez. All sexism, in principle, is wrong. However, again, women discriminating against men simply is not really a problem. In the few areas where it is, progress is being made to the extent it can using legislation. For example, there has always been a built in prejudice in favor of the mother when it comes to custody in a divorce case. Most states have passed legislation mandating that the sole criteria be the best interests of the child and that gender bias be entirely removed. Has it had the desired effect? Of course not. It has helped, very much so but it hasn't been prefect (often legislation written to stop racism has been condemned by the right as a failure simply because it wasn't 100% effective). What is helping even more are academic studies and books, etc, which show that the best custodial parent is not always the mother. So gradually, the built in discrimination here is fading away.

That was a dumb post.

Joey Heatherton, didn't she make a fortune doing mattress commercials? Great dancer, always wore short skirts if I remember correctly. Even I'm not old enough to remember when Dean Martin had a show. Please tell me you only saw them in reruns.

What exactly was she famous for anyway? I know she was a singer but all I can recall is her being a perennial guest on all those variety shows. Remember variety shows?

Feeling a little paranoid? So you really think the ACLU is out to "remove the word 'Christmas' from our vocabulary"?!?!?! Now who is being silly? What, have they petitioned Webster's to pull it? Funny, I checked their web site and didn't find anything about that particular effort. Maybe it is written in code only you can understand? Or perhaps you can see through to their evil, evil, christ hating hearts despite all their fancy talk of preserving religious freedom by keeping government, historically the greatest enemy of religious freedom, out of the religion business. Ach, it iss all liesssss. I did find a note on their site about how they filed an amicus brief in a New Jersey case supporting a child who was barred from singing "Awesome God" at an after school talent show. Must be a feint to put off the torch bearing mob. I also found that they have to devote a part of their web site to debunk lies and hoaxes circulating the internet on conservative freak show web sites about their actions. Of all the problems we have in this country to fret over, worrying that the celebration of christmas is in danger of being stilted has got to be the biggest waste of worrying time I can imagine. Maybe you could find me evidence of a lawsuit, a single one, where the ACLU successfully went after a business for using, *gasp*, "closed Decemeber 25th" instead of "closed christmas".

Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. Were you a writer for Hee-Haw?

I'm not asking anyone to change, you are the one bemoaning the fact that some business put up a sign that said "closed December 25th" instead of "closed for christmas". In one breath you cite that as a problem and with the next point out that it is such a pervasive, quintessentially American holiday that even someone from Gabon should know that christmas falls on December 25th inorder to be a good American. Really, what in the world is the problem with some business deciding, for their own reasons, to put up whatever sign they want?

I don't work in the health care field but then again, getting facts straight isn't exactly your long suit is it?

So to prpoerly assimilate, one must become a christian? Iwould have thought that religious freedom would mean that you don't have to have a clue what some one ele's religious observances were all about let alone their schedule. I know, the nationwide shortage of attention paid to christmas is certainly a travesty and all but somehow, we all must endeavor to persevere.

If they respond, it creates the look of a "controversey" which feeds into the "teach the controversey" argument they are trying to use. All that "Bush is stupid" talk really never had much to support it beyond his inability to speak well off the cuff or even from a good script. However, the one area I would argue that really does support the idea that he is not very bright is his apparent position on teaching creationism in schools. It almost has to be a position born of ignorance. Just about every christian I have spoken to, who certainly sympathize with the ID advocates, still realize that it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.

wasn't that Jeb Bush?

What can I tell you? I am a tangle of incongruencies.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one Tom. I simply don't think that "simpering" really applies here. I think Caterwauling would be more accurate. cat·er·waul 1. To cry or screech like a cat in heat. 2. To make a shrill, discordant sound. 3. To have a noisy argument. I can't really argue with "idiot" though I might have gone with "imbecile". However, I think in modern usage it is considered offensive.

Why would you refer to a man who has worked for everyone from Bill Clinton to Jesse Helms and Trent Lott as a "democratic strategist" instead of what he so clearly is, a "political strategeist?" Did you not know of his history before you decided to call him a democratic strategist or did you know and hoped no one would notice your deception? As for your charge that some opt for personal attacks over facts, actually, in my very first reply to your werewolf post, I linked to a lengthy analysis of post surrender activity in WWII. The posts you were hit with in response by others cited historical references, facts, etc. which contradicted your point. If you want to boil that down to a "personal attatck" on your credibility, I think you are overstating the matter. By the time the personal attacks started, you were giving as much as you took. By the way, wasn't it you who came at me in another thread, with your first post in the thread, about a personal crusade and jumping up and down behind my computer? Careful with the stones in that glass house. As for Dick Morris and his views on werewolfs, the same historical information contradicting that point we have already cited still applies. I saw no reason to bother re-posting it all since the only new point you raised seems to be "See? I'm not an idiot because Dick Morris agrees with me, so there." Since you were using his personal credibility as a "democratic strategist" to bolster your view, there wasn't much to respond to other than the fact that he is a Fox News tool. Really, he can't make a living doing anything else. As for his personal history, I'm sorry, does his record of hiring prostitutes enhance his credibility?

Dick Morris is a jack-ass and every democrat worth his salt either hates him, thinks he is a moron or both. He makes a living Clinton bashing which is why Fox loves him and he is a regular on Hannity. He has worked for Jesse Helms, William Weld, Pete Wilson and Trent Lott. He was also against Kerry. He is not a democratic strategist, he is a political strategist long past his prime. Of course, playing around with prostitutes kind of cut short his career. I am about as shocked by the fact that he shares your views as I would be if I learned that Hannity or Limbaugh or Coulter shared your views.

She's dead, bless her heart, and I would be more surprised to see her in jail than him. Totally buffala.

I'd argue with you but as usual, I don't understand a thing you are saying so I'll just nod knowingly in apparent agreement so as to disguise my befuddlement. Your job is to avoid an awkward moment by pretending not to notice my confusion. If the enemy ever catches you, I am confident you will divulge nothing Mr. Cryptic. You have to laugh. Frist: This terrible leak has threatened America and we must get to the bottom of it and punish the traitors. Frist Aide: Pssssst, Senator, psssst Frist: What? Frist Aide: Uh..I think we have a problem. Lott says it was a Republican who leaked that stuff. Frist: Never mind. I mean really, its like a Saturday Night Live skit except that its real.

The whole trial in Dover, that is all those ID guys kept saying over and over and over. Michael Behe, the ID "scientist" was adamant about it no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary.

Settled a huge case last week so I'm coasting, resting on my laurels and all.

Its amazing. I can't get away with a parking violation and this guy, with an IQ of about 27, 30 tops, is a major narcotics player and has about as much of a chance of ever going to jail as my Grandma Pepina.