Be Afraid

[RenaissanceLady]

Let's put it this way, I wasn't going to respond to this post because of the obvious backlash I would most probably receive; but oh well, here goes:

1. Everyone in this country has the right to believe in whatever they wish.
2. Though If you are going to represent the nation, then don't impose your belief system to the extent that it may infringe on the majority of others needs in which you represent (I.E. Close-mindedness) Use common sense and if you cannot do this, don't run for an office which conflicts with this important aspect of your personal belief system.
3. What is right for Georgia might not be right for the rest of the United States. This is why we have a congress and this is why we have the balance of the various powers....not a perfect world but one which seems to work better than most, if not all.
4. Science as well as Theology do not have all the answers.

So looking at the above 4 important points (and I know they are many more) I would have to conclude that as someone who also went into the military to protect these rights for others, I find a problem with anyone who would lead from personal belief to the extent that he or she went against the reason why those men and women put him or her into office in the first place. If Georgia voted the man in based upon his Evangelical beliefs alone, then I would have to say, "he represents his constituents" and is only doing what he must, but I seriously doubt this is the case, as I know for one fact, Uniformed Evangelicalism in areas where I have been in Georgia, are based on beliefs similar to my own...see below.

So, if Georgia wants to bring back segregation or deny rights to women (including the right to control their own health), Georgia should be allowed to do that?

Silly me, I thought civil rights were rights that were too important to be subjected to the whims of the masses so they therefore must be guaranteed by national law. There's also that whole 1st Amendment thing, which is the beginning of our Bill of Rights.

You go on to say that "Science as well as Theology do not have all the answers."

The difference is, science searches for and uses facts to find the answers, challenging previously held beliefs unless they can be held up by facts. It makes us ask questions and search for answers. Theology doesn't care about facts and only asks that we blindly obey. The two should not be compared.

So where does that leave me?

A. The world is a hell of a lot older than what this man professes. The old Testament explains that the earth was completely covered with water before there was land. There were great beasts then and other aspects of differences to this man's words. Please do not respond that I am wrong, this is merely an example of why (in my opinion) this Representative is not representing correctly.

B. The Lord supposedly created the earth that we know of in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Not that the Lord created the earth in 6 days completely, emphasis on period.

C. If you were to ask this man what day the Lord rested, he would probably tell you it was on a Sunday....Wrong! In my opinion and many who believe like me, the Lord rested on a Saturday, and Sunday was the beginning of the new week!

Now I place these three points out there to show how even I, a branded "Christian nutcase" could believe differently than this man. I find his words offensive and against what I believe as well and wouldn't want him representing me. For personal reasons I happen to like the way Rand Paul leads us because you wouldn't hear this crap out of him no matter what he believed.

BUT.....and here is the but. He does have the right to say what he says.....and Georgia has the right to axe his ass the next time a vote is brought to their State (hopefully). Having this man on the House Science Committee is very wrong as I personally believe that in order to be on this committee, one should be open to all aspects of RESEARCH in Science....not belief with a closed minded agenda.....and lead correctly for all the people.

So there you have it....glad you read?

Should ANY laws be subjected to the whims of one man's religion? That's the point of this thread. You've just shown that he doesn't even speak for all Christians, much less the entire country. You are welcome to believe as you wish. You may not say that your beliefs - without shred of fact - must be taught in place of science. You can teach whatever you want in your church and at home but that whole 1st Amendment thing is actually designed to not allow the infliction of one man's religion upon all others. It also is supposed to prevent religion deciding the role of government, or vice versa.

Yes, I am glad I read what you had to say.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

I wanted to ad a little addendum to what I stated above. There has to be a place for "morals" as well when you lead people. I know this sounds quite naivete of me, but the difference between someone who was voted into office based on the obvious facts, versus someone who slid his way in with a hidden agenda which he or she then imposes, is sometimes hard to digest. I am not saying that this is what Broun did, but my point above was to clarify representation in it's clearest form....Based upon the going belief system in Georgia (Christian based) I don't believe he did this very well, nor do I believe that Georgia would have voted him in office if his views were not what they thought.

And then we wonder why the rest of the world seems to have singled out Christians and hate so much. Jesus never meant to hold fellowship in this way.

Wikipedia defines morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") as the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). While morality can be defined in terms of religious ideology, religious ideology is not the only definition of morality. What may seem moral to a person of one religion may seem inherently immoral to a person of a different religion, or to another who partakes in no religion.

We do have morals legislated in our government, though these are not part of any religious ideology. It's part of our constitution and it's known as the Bill of Rights, which was designed to protect individual freedoms. Among those rights is our very First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If any person or politician establishes religion in the public sector (including public schools), it is a violation of that First Amendment. Taking science out of science class and replacing it with theology is in violation of the First Amendment. NO ONE is saying what they can or cannot teach in their homes and religious institutions. We are saying that they cannot inflict their religion upon everyone, even when this is exactly what a majority wants.

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem.[2] A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.[2]

(snip)

Public choice theory

The notion that, in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannise and exploit diverse smaller interests, has been criticised by Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, who argues instead that narrow and well organised minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority. Olson argues that when the benefits of political action (e.g., lobbying) are spread over fewer agents, there is a stronger individual incentive to contribute to that political activity. Narrow groups, especially those who can reward active participation to their group goals, might therefore be able to dominate or distort political process, a process studied in public choice theory.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is exactly the point I made in my response to your first post. Tyranny of the Majority is the enemy of a true, thriving democracy. It would oppress individual freedoms due to the whims of the masses. Our Bill of Rights is designed to help protect us from a Tyranny of the Majority, thus ensuring personal freedom and responsibility.

 

[exo_doc]

I understand the concept of Broun and others in politics representing thier constituents. Actually, in a Demoncracy the people would vote on all matters. We live in a representative type of governemnt, a Republic, where the elected are supposed to act in a way best for his voters.
The Bill of Rights and it's amendments are supposed to protect core human rights and are not supposed to be subject to vagaries and whims of the few.

I have stated before, I have no problems with Christians being a Christian...believe what ever you want (just leave me, my kids, and science alone!). I will even defend your right to be Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever.
BUT, religion does NOT belong in the SCIENCE classroom.
Teach Christianity in religion class. Rail against Darwin, Hawking, Einstein, and Richard Dawkins all you want.....in THAT classroom.

In other words, a religion class doesn't require evidence, proof, or even facts. Just beliefs.
Science class would not exist if it were not for evidence, testable theories.......and provable demonstrable FACTS.

Broun is calling his beliefs "facts", and if he wants to live with an upclose view of his colon, it's his right.
BUT he does NOT have the right to force me to live by his Christian beliefs,...and that's exactly what he wants, and why I'll stand up to him and any of his ilk anytime, anywhere.

Rennaissance Lady above gave the definition for Morals. I think most morals are religion based, and that's a slippery slope for any government representative.

How about ethics instead? Even though the definition of ethics has morals in it, I think it has less to do with religion and more with the best of human actions.........
"That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. "

I like the "motives" and "end of actions" part best because , to me anyway, it means the method does not always justify the means.

What it boils down to is, a man in power pushing his religious beliefs, (against the 2nd Amendment) , onto other people without thier choice.

 

[dankaholic]

The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. It hasnt been definitively proven fact or it wouldnt be called the theory anymore. To say this animal "evolved" from that is pseudo science in my opinion and almost as much of a leap of faith as saying UFOs are faster then 747s so must be aliens.
The Big Bang Theory, also unprovable for the most part but makes sense to our current understanding of how the universe works, which seems to change everyday. Todays Big Bang will be tomorrows Little Pop.
The bible is clearly a good book with a provocative story, Im not a religious person but I can respect the staying power it has since people have been reading it in one form or another for centuries.
People like this Rep. Braun believe the bible is the literal word of God, as if he sat with a stenographer and dictated the story to them.
Go figure.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

The theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. It hasnt been definitively proven fact or it wouldnt be called the theory anymore. To say this animal "evolved" from that is pseudo science in my opinion and almost as much of a leap of faith as saying UFOs are faster then 747s so must be aliens.
The Big Bang Theory, also unprovable for the most part but makes sense to our current understanding of how the universe works, which seems to change everyday. Todays Big Bang will be tomorrows Little Pop.
The bible is clearly a good book with a provocative story, Im not a religious person but I can respect the staying power it has since people have been reading it in one form or another for centuries.
People like this Rep. Braun believe the bible is the literal word of God, as if he sat with a stenographer and dictated the story to them.
Go figure.

Oh my.

I guess then you could say that the Theory of Gravity is just that, a theory. Ditto for the Theory of Flight and the Theory of Relativity. All of these are clearly "a leap of faith."

Of course, you will need to explain to me how we have drug-resistant bacteria and share 96% of our genomes with chimpanzees if there is no such thing as evolution? (Are these just damn coincidences?)

Here's the definition of evolution from dictionary.com. Please tell me which among these definitions are "pseudo science" so we can debate the merits of evolution.

evolution

 

ev·o·lu·tion

   [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA
noun

1.​

any process of formation or growth; development: theevolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2.​

a product of such development; something evolved: Theexploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3.​

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population fromgeneration to generation by such processes as mutation,natural selection, and genetic drift.

4.​

a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change ordevelopment, as in social or economic structure orinstitutions.

5.​

a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinatedmotions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
​

​

​

 

[PararealitySaint]

And how do we interpret fact? How is it that the majority of one scientific opinion can argue against the minority of another scientific opinion, all within the realm of that supposed "fact?"

I stand by comparing the two.

If the majority of Georgians wished to bring back segregation, the state would have to once again succeed from the union. I understand the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution and as a State there are certain adherences that state must employ if said state wishes to stay in the United States.

In a free society both Science and Religion can guide someone’s belief and method of development. I questioned the “moral” obligation because the legal precedent provides for very little room, if any in this case, to challenge the Representatives position. I couldn’t very well state that he should be thrown out of office “legally”, because there is nothing in the law which warrants this method of suspension.

I laugh at the fact that you state the term, “designed” to….Where you there? Where you there when our Forefathers wrote the work you quote as knowing?

The first amendment reads as such:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

1. Where did Mr. Broun make a law that has forced you to respect his religion?
2. Where has Mr. Broun forced you not to be able to freely exercise the very same?
3. Where has he abridged your right to freely speak?
4. Where has he taken away your freedom of press in this context?
5. Your right to assemble?
6. To petition?

Sorry, none of thus has been forced upon you in any way whatsoever. You can choose to vote against his beliefs by contacting the congressman who represents your State, and voting him out when the question comes to you.

“If any person or politician establishes religion in the public sector (including public schools), it is a violation of that First Amendment.”

An where did Mr. Broun establish this for you or me or anyone. In fact, where did he do anything more than state his belief over a public venue, or doesn’t the 1st amendment cover that for him as well?

I stand by my moral explanation for the virtue of the man. If he hid this from his constituents, shame on him…but he was placed in office by the voting of his state, and he therefore has the right, no, obligation to represent their interests. I didn’t need a lesson on the law to understand this.

And then there comes the MORAL issue:

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It should be noted that John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

“We do have morals legislated in our government”

This is true, but where can you find in the laws of these United States where it says that Mr. Broun cannot use his personal belief system to not only publicly discuss thus, but also to use as a guideline to govern his decisions in this committee?

…Thus my reason to bring in the “personal” moral issue behind his obligation to represent his constituents. It can be argued that every law legislates morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life).

But again, find some legislated ruling which prohibits his right to represent the people by calling the sciences quoted by him, “the work of the devil.” You cannot within the jurisprudence of the laws of the United States, and God help us all if one day you can!

 

[Randall]

Let's put it this way, I wasn't going to respond to this post because of the obvious backlash I would most probably receive ...

Hey ... so far as I'm concerned we're all entitled to express ourselves in whatever way we want so long as we're also prepared to accept the consequences. So by all means let's all say what we want, but let's also not expect respect that hasn't been earned or confuse responses based on reason with personal attacks. A faith based argument demands respect without reason and that's simply not good enough for those ( not unlike myself ) who believe respect needs to be earned. How does this relate to the points you made?

I agree we all have the right to believe in whatever we wish and I believe that anyone who patterns their life around a belief that has no foundation in reality poses a risk to the welfare of others he or she is responsible for. Even if they can for the most part separate church from state in their duties, it will always present itself as an internal question or conflict that must be reconciled, and therefore the influence cannot be entirely eliminated. Do we want someone with that level of internal conflict in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? I don't think so. Do we want someone without the conflict because they are totally comfortable with their religious conviction in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? I don't think so. Do we want someone who can look at the issues objectively without any internal religious conflict and make decisions based on reason in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? This seems to me to be the logical choice. Would you not agree?

 

[PararealitySaint]

Hey ... so far as I'm concerned we're all entitled to express ourselves in whatever way we want so long as we're also prepared to accept the consequences. So by all means let's all say what we want, but let's also not expect respect that hasn't been earned or confuse responses based on reason with personal attacks. A faith based argument demands respect without reason and that's simply not good enough for those ( not unlike myself ) who believe respect needs to be earned. How does this relate to the points you made?

Respect without reason? As opposed to what, respect with reason? And where is reason in your response to the "morals" behind the argument. I never stated that it was my way or the highway, but I did state that Mr. Broun had a moral obligation to his constituents, no matter if he believed in little green men, Darwin, or any other belief system.

As far as "respect" that hasn't been earned? If you are referring to a generality here, then by all means confirm why respect would be given anyway....respect for a contrary point of view is so far superior to just agreeing with someone else because it's easier.

I agree we all have the right to believe in whatever we wish and I believe that anyone who patterns their life around a belief that has no foundation in reality poses a risk to the welfare of others he or she is responsible for.

A "risk" could just as easily be interpreted by a religious person who bases their opinion on not wanting to be exterminated because the going "Science" in his homeland specifies it as a necessity based on scientific proof that the Jew is inferior. What possible logic can this science point to? It would be a double standard to state any less.

Are you going to tell those who survived Dachau that this was the right "scientific" decision to make?

Even if they can for the most part separate church from state in their duties, it will always present itself as an internal question or conflict that must be reconciled, and therefore the influence cannot be entirely eliminated. Do we want someone with that level of internal conflict in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? I don't think so.

So then you don't want anyone to lead. I see.

Do we want someone without the conflict because they are totally comfortable with their religious conviction in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? I don't think so. Do we want someone who can look at the issues objectively without any internal religious conflict and make decisions based on reason in charge of a nation with nuclear weapons? This seems to me to be the logical choice. Would you not agree?

Sure....And when you find him or her please send him or her this way.

 

[Randall]

Respect without reason? As opposed to what, respect with reason? And where is reason in your response to the "morals" behind the argument. I never stated that it was my way or the highway, but I did state that Mr. Broun had a moral obligation to his constituents, no matter if he believed in little green men, Darwin, or any other belief system.

Nobody is arguing the above point. The point is that such an obligation can be fulfilled without personally holding any religious faith or belief. As you say, we have the right to believe what we want and I'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that we should deny constituents their personal beliefs. They are in my opinion, necessary for personal growth and advancement, even if some folks get bogged down or led down the garden path. Making mistakes helps us learn and if it goes too far then there are secular laws in place to protect people. Or at least they're supposed to. But whatever the case, we need the freedom to explore our beliefs and screw up and suffer the consequences ourselves. The problem with politics is that when they screw up they don't affect just themselves.

As far as "respect" that hasn't been earned? If you are referring to a generality here, then by all means confirm why respect would be given anyway....respect for a contrary point of view is so far superior to just agreeing with someone else because it's easier.

The concept of respect means different things in different circumstances for different people, but the concept of earning respect requires a reason as opposed to blind faith or obedience to authority. Reason means something that makes sense logically so that regardless of any subjective opinion or belief ( such as faith ) the truth of the matter can be established or estimated with some accuracy. Certainly it's easier for those comfortable among the flock to go along with the status quo than to be excommunicated. Similar social pressures exist outside a religious context as well and can be equally limiting.

A "risk" could just as easily be interpreted by a religious person who bases their opinion on not wanting to be exterminated because the going "Science" in his homeland specifies it as a necessity based on scientific proof that the Jew is inferior. What possible logic can this science point to? It would be a double standard to state any less. Are you going to tell those who survived Dachau that this was the right "scientific" decision to make?

I don't see how the above is relevant. You're talking about Nazi propaganda not science.

So then you don't want anyone to lead. I see.

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[exo_doc]

And how do we interpret fact? How is it that the majority of one scientific opinion can argue against the minority of another scientific opinion, all within the realm of that supposed "fact?"

I stand by comparing the two.

If the majority of Georgians wished to bring back segregation, the state would have to once again succeed from the union. I understand the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution and as a State there are certain adherences that state must employ if said state wishes to stay in the United States.

In a free society both Science and Religion can guide someone’s belief and method of development. I questioned the “moral” obligation because the legal precedent provides for very little room, if any in this case, to challenge the Representatives position. I couldn’t very well state that he should be thrown out of office “legally”, because there is nothing in the law which warrants this method of suspension.

I laugh at the fact that you state the term, “designed” to….Where you there? Where you there when our Forefathers wrote the work you quote as knowing?

The first amendment reads as such:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

1. Where did Mr. Broun make a law that has forced you to respect his religion?
2. Where has Mr. Broun forced you not to be able to freely exercise the very same?
3. Where has he abridged your right to freely speak?
4. Where has he taken away your freedom of press in this context?
5. Your right to assemble?
6. To petition?

Sorry, none of thus has been forced upon youin any way whatsoever. You can choose to vote against his beliefs by contacting the congressman who represents your State, and voting him out when the question comes to you.


“If any person or politician establishes religion in the public sector (including public schools), it is a violation of that First Amendment.”

An where did Mr. Broun establish this for you or me or anyone. In fact, where did he do anything more than state his belief over a public venue, or doesn’t the 1st amendment cover that for him as well?

I stand by my moral explanation for the virtue of the man. If he hid this from his constituents, shame on him…but he was placed in office by the voting of his state, and he therefore has the right, no, obligation to represent their interests. I didn’t need a lesson on the law to understand this.

And then there comes the MORAL issue:

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It should be noted that John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

“We do have morals legislated in our government”

This is true, but where can you find in the laws of these United States where it says that Mr. Broun cannot use his personal belief system to not only publicly discuss thus, but also to use as a guideline to govern his decisions in this committee?

…Thus my reason to bring in the “personal” moral issue behind his obligation to represent his constituents. It can be argued that every law legislates morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life).

But again, find some legislated ruling which prohibits his right to represent the people by calling the sciences quoted by him, “the work of the devil.” You cannot within the jurisprudence of the laws of the United States, and God help us all if one day you can!

You're kidding me right Saint? .......Just where am I being forced to follow your religion?
How about....
1. I can't legally marry another guy and have the same rights as a straight couple. (And if you think I am not a Christian because of gayness, I'm not. I'm straight and I have kids)
2. People with Alzheimers, Cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons disease, Muscular Dystrophy, mutiple sclerosis....and on and on...suffer with these diseases because the Christian right has stopped government funding of Stem Cell research (which shows every promise of curing these, and other, diseases).
3. In North Carolina, I can't buy liquor on a Sunday, and beer can't be sold before 12:00....it's called "Blue Laws", and they are very definatly Christian based. We don't even have liquor stores. We have Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) stores state owned and operated. You can't own a private liquor store in North Carolina. And that is also Christian based because preachers love to preach about how the Christians won that fight back in the 60's.
4. How about women CONSTANTLY having to fight for the right to control their own bodies through contraception? Who's always in thier way trying to stop them?
5. How about trying to teach Creationism, NOT a science but a religion, right along with Evolution, (THE most successful scierntific theory of all time) to my kids in the classroom? And it's Christian based Creationism, not Native American...not Polynesian,.....not Hinduism, etc etc.
6. And what religion was trying to prevent my daughters from being able to recieve the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine two years ago? It was Focus on the Family who tried to block the vaccine even being produced!!!
7. And why are schools prevented from REAL sex ed, which DOES prevent prenancies and std's, and are only allowed to teach abstinence, ...which DOES cause pregnancies and std's because kids don't know what the hell they are doing!

And these are just a few off the top of my head Saint!!!!

So, don't tell me Christianity isn't being forced on me and other non-Christians, it happens every day, all the time.

As far as the freedom of the press, petition for greivances, an so on....I'm sure the Christian Right is just looking for ways to get around those too.

If I sounded assholish, I do apologize for that Saint. I'm doing my best to remain civil about this.
But I do not apologize for the content.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Reason means something that makes sense logically so that regardless of any subjective opinion or belief ( such as faith ) the truth of the matter can be established or estimated with some accuracy. Certainly it's easier for those comfortable among the flock to go along with the status quo than to be excommunicated. Similar social pressures exist outside a religious context as well and can be equally limiting.

I don't see how the above is relevant. You're talking about Nazi propaganda not science.

LOL! To the Jews living in Germany both before and during World War Two, the going "fact" based science, enforced by the Nuremberg laws, was the main "scientific" basis to the German people of the time. It wasn't propaganda to them and because they were forced to live within the constraints of these scientific facts as they had seen them; it became an integral part of their life.

The example was to show the reader that logical analysis of what someone might consider scientific fact, and others might consider a temporary phase, easily shows why neither science or religion should be the only accepted authority in the decision of government overseeing. In the example you earlier replied to, science seemed to surpass what you didn't want to see all those opinionated priests ruling over you by. I would argue that in both cases, "MORALS" are necessary, but unfortunately not law binding.....And this includes what Mr. Broun has done.

Hey ... so far as I'm concerned we're all entitled to express ourselves in whatever way we want so long as we're also prepared to accept the consequences. So by all means let's all say what we want, but let's also not expect respect that hasn't been earned or confuse responses based on reason with personal attacks. A faith based argument demands respect without reason and that's simply not good enough for those ( not unlike myself ) who believe respect needs to be earned. How does this relate to the points you made?

I agree we all have the right to believe in whatever we wish and I believe that anyone who patterns their life around a belief that has no foundation in reality poses a risk to the welfare of others he or she is responsible for.

As so blind faith in science would also be dangerous, as the example shows above.

 

[Randall]

LOL! To the Jews living in Germany both before and during World War Two, the going "fact" based science, enforced by the Nuremberg laws, was the main "scientific" basis to the German people of the time. It wasn't propaganda to them and because they were forced to live within the constraints of these scientific facts as they had seen them; it became an integral part of their life.

The example was to show the reader that logical analysis of what someone might consider scientific fact, and others might consider a temporary phase, easily shows why neither science or religion should be the only accepted authority in the decision of government overseeing. In the example you earlier replied to, science seemed to surpass what you didn't want to see all those opinionated priests ruling over you by. I would argue that in both cases, "MORALS" are necessary, but unfortunately not law binding.....And this includes what Mr. Broun has done.

As so blind faith in science would also be dangerous, as the example shows above.

• Laugh all you want. If you won't accept that the concept of "Jewish inferiority" was Nazi propoganda rather than science, then you're being wilfully ignorant of the facts. What facts? How about the fact that at under the auspices of Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew (1940) was made and presented as a documentary. It has since been characterized the most hideous success of the anti-semitic films" made during the Nazi era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_(1940_film)
• Science doesn't operate on blind faith. You're making an unfounded proclamation. Science ( from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" ) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PararealitySaint]

You're kidding me right Saint? .......Just where am I being forced to follow your religion?
How about....
1. I can't legally marry another guy and have the same rights as a straight couple. (And if you think I am not a Christian because of gayness, I'm not. I'm straight and I have kids)
2. People with Alzheimers, Cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons disease, Muscular Dystrophy, mutiple sclerosis....and on and on...suffer with these diseases because the Christian right has stopped government funding of Stem Cell research (which shows every promise of curing these, and other, diseases).
3. In North Carolina, I can't buy liquor on a Sunday, and beer can't be sold before 12:00....it's called "Blue Laws", and they are very definatly Christian based. We don't even have liquor stores. We have Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) stores state owned and operated. You can't own a private liquor store in North Carolina. And that is also Christian based because preachers love to preach about how the Christians won that fight back in the 60's.
4. How about women CONSTANTLY having to fight for the right to control their own bodies through contraception? Who's always in thier way trying to stop them?
5. How about trying to teach Creationism, NOT a science but a religion, right along with Evolution, (THE most successful scierntific theory of all time) to my kids in the classroom? And it's Christian based Creationism, not Native American...not Polynesian,.....not Hinduism, etc etc.
6. And what religion was trying to prevent my daughters from being able to recieve the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine two years ago? It was Focus on the Family who tried to block the vaccine even being produced!!!
7. And why are schools prevented from REAL sex ed, which DOES prevent prenancies and std's, and are only allowed to teach abstinence, ...which DOES cause pregnancies and std's because kids don't know what the hell they are doing!

And these are just a few off the top of my head Saint!!!!

So, don't tell me Christianity isn't being forced on me and other non-Christians, it happens every day, all the time.

As far as the freedom of the press, petition for greivances, an so on....I'm sure the Christian Right is just looking for ways to get around those too.

If I sounded assholish, I do apologize for that Saint. I'm doing my best to remain civil about this.
But I do not apologize for the content.

Ummmmm....wasn't the original discussion we had based on Representative Broun's un called for comments? I explained in my point exactly how his usage of thus in no way prohibited your life....

Now if you want to argue how the laws of the land have become limiting upon your person based on the tendency for lawmakers to be guided by their consciences and religious views, then an argument could be made for the electorate system and whether or not it truly represents the people.

I for one believe that if you have a complaint about the beer laws, or gay marriage, you should persuade others that your point of view matters, and thereby gain the much necessary votes to change it.

Here in Kentucky (in my county at least) we had dry laws ever since prohibition. It was an uphill climb but I and others protested this, found a representative who would also stand up for this belief, it was fought within the proper avenues given according to the laws of the land, and eventually the law was overturned.This is how a capitalist republic works and I'm sorry if it doesn't seem to work for you.

Lastly, Morals work both ways....Even though I believe that this Representative had a moral obligation to uphold the views of his constituents, he must also utilize common sense in his approach to its objectives. Once again, although I do not believe that his words represented the people who voted for him, unless he is unseated, his words prevail. But let's face it, there is no robots working here...we are all human and within the mold there is room for mistakes.

 

[PararealitySaint]

• Laugh all you want. If you won't accept that the concept of "Jewish inferiority" was Nazi propoganda rather than science, then you're being wilfully ignorant of the facts. What facts? How about the fact that at under the auspices of Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, the German Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew (1940) was made and presented as a documentary. It has since been characterized the most hideous success of the anti-semitic films" made during the Nazi era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_(1940_film)
• Science doesn't operate on blind faith. You're making an unfound proclamation. Science ( from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" ) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm....Tell this to the Hitler Youth and the millions of other people who had no choice but to marry within their race, because the "science" of the unter mench meant that no Jew was equal scientifically to a Nordic inherent race.

And lastly, as it really is becoming a waste of time now, please study history and not just quote Wikipedia because it's easier to do. I have probably read more books on the subject than you could ever imagine, and honestly, please believe it when I tell you that the science of Aryan purity was in fact a science to the German people of that time, and yes, it was a form of propaganda utilized in their political agenda as well. Get some books on Mengele and his tests, the charts the SS used when they looked for the superior soldat, the sacrifice Himmler had to do when they were losing the war with the initiations of the new SS, The Taoists and why Nazi scientists traveled to Tibet, and so many other scientific forms of mumbo jumbo, it would take a catalog to write here.

Interesting discussion. Time for me to move on.

 

[Randall]

Hmmm....Tell this to the Hitler Youth and the millions of other people who had no choice but to marry within their race, because the "science" of the unter mench meant that no Jew was equal scientifically to a Nordic inherent race.

You're not using an example of science. You're using an example of Nazi propoganda and calling it science simply because some people believed the propoganda. That is completely false logic.

And lastly, as it really is becoming a waste of time now, please study history and not just quote Wikipedia because it's easier to do.

It's usually the same thing every time in these discussions. The person who can't support their position with reason and/or evidence declares the conversation a waste of time, dismisses any evidence that is contrary to their belief, and proclaims the other person as uninformed. If you think Wikipedia is in error please identify the error. Make it as difficult as you want. Come up with some elaborate holocaust denial story backed by true facts and evidence that makes Goebbels into a respected scientist and the film a real documentary. Or would learning the truth that you're in error also be a waste of time?

 

[exo_doc]

Ummmmm....wasn't the original discussion we had based on Representative Broun's un called for comments? I explained in my point exactly how his usage of thus in no way prohibited your life....

Now if you want to argue how the laws of the land have become limiting upon your person based on the tendency for lawmakers to be guided by their consciences and religious views, then an argument could be made for the electorate system and whether or not it truly represents the people.

I for one believe that if you have a complaint about the beer laws, or gay marriage, you should persuade others that your point of view matters, and thereby gain the much necessary votes to change it.

Here in Kentucky (in my county at least) we had dry laws ever since prohibition. It was an uphill climb but I and others protested this, found a representative who would also stand up for this belief, it was fought within the proper avenues given according to the laws of the land, and eventually the law was overturned.This is how a capitalist republic works and I'm sorry if it doesn't seem to work for you.

Lastly, Morals work both ways....Even though I believe that this Representative had a moral obligation to uphold the views of his constituents, he must also utilize common sense in his approach to its objectives. Once again, although I do not believe that his words represented the people who voted for him, unless he is unseated, his words prevail. But let's face it, there is no robots working here...we are all human and within the mold there is room for mistakes.

I guess I came across a lttle too harsh Saint.
And I strayed a little from the original topic. I live in a very , very fundamentalist area of NC, and I just get so tired of being harrassed, yes harrrassed, for not towing the Christian party line.

In any event, let me try to explain this another way.
Let's say you're a Christian, yet the government has predominantly Muslim politicians.
Let's say they pass Sharia laws...... like your wife can't go out in public without a head to foot burka on.
She can't hold a job.
She can't go to school.
She can only go shopping if a male family member chaperones her.
Your daughter must prove her virginity before being granted the ability to marry.

You'd be pissed right?...Why should YOU, a Christian, have to follow Muslim laws and abide by Muslim morals?

You see where I'm going with this Saint?

 

[exo_doc]

Ummmmm....wasn't the original discussion we had based on Representative Broun's un called for comments? I explained in my point exactly how his usage of thus in no way prohibited your life....

Now if you want to argue how the laws of the land have become limiting upon your person based on the tendency for lawmakers to be guided by their consciences and religious views, then an argument could be made for the electorate system and whether or not it truly represents the people.

I for one believe that if you have a complaint about the beer laws, or gay marriage, you should persuade others that your point of view matters, and thereby gain the much necessary votes to change it.

Here in Kentucky (in my county at least) we had dry laws ever since prohibition. It was an uphill climb but I and others protested this, found a representative who would also stand up for this belief, it was fought within the proper avenues given according to the laws of the land, and eventually the law was overturned.This is how a capitalist republic works and I'm sorry if it doesn't seem to work for you.

Lastly, Morals work both ways....Even though I believe that this Representative had a moral obligation to uphold the views of his constituents, he must also utilize common sense in his approach to its objectives. Once again, although I do not believe that his words represented the people who voted for him, unless he is unseated, his words prevail. But let's face it, there is no robots working here...we are all human and within the mold there is room for mistakes.

And sorry Saint, but you said, in your words, "Where did Mr.Broun make a law that has forced you to respect his religion?"
OK, maybe HE didn't pass the law...but people of his mindset have and continue to.

Anyway, I notice you didn't respond to my examples of being forced to live by Christian laws.

If my example of Sharia law in post #56 doesn't help you see where I'm coming from...well, that's one of the many reasons Christians and I do not see eye-to-eye. Christians in general refuse to see other points of view because it might make them question their own views, and they can't have that!
Christians, for the majority, do not beleive in the 2nd Amendment...except when it suits thier purposes.
"Freedom of religion?...Well, that's only for Christians. After all, wasn't America founded on Christian principles?" (Actually, no it wasn't, but that's a whole other ocean of worms).

One other thing,... I have repeatedly said I respect peoples choices of religion in many other posts.
I hope Christianity gives you peace and comfort. I really do.
Just don't try to force ME to live by your Christian principles and we'll be one big happy country.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

We've now just had another Republican candidate, who has been enthusiastically supported by both Romney and Ryan, state that pregnancy caused by rape is a "gift from God" and "God's plan."

During a debate on Tuesday night, Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancy was a gift from God, even if it was the result of rape.

“I believe life begins at conception,” he said. “The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock: Pregnancy a ‘gift from God’ even in cases of rape | The Raw Story

Due to Mourdock's "Christian" beliefs, we're now saying that the results of rape - therefore implying the rape itself - is a "gift from God" because it was part of God's plan. The nine-year-old girl who ends up ripped apart after a rape would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term entirely due to the most narrowly-defined and cherry-picked version of someone's religion. Every single proposed law that restricts women's reproductive rights is directly due to someone trying to inflict his religion upon all others. Murdock's views just came on the heels of Rep. Joe Walsh's claims that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother, claiming:

There’s no such exception as life of the mother,” Walsh told reporters following the debate. “And as far as health of the mother – same thing. Advances in science and technology. Health of the mother has been, has become a tool for abortions any time and for any reason.”

Clearly, this woman does not exist:
What “health of the mother” means - Salon.com

Let's not pretend this is somehow based in "science". True science is not about religious preferences, nor is it about legitimizing bigotry even when bigots pretend their views are somehow based on "science". Hitler's extremely Catholic background may well have planted the seed for extreme religious hatred, whereas his pretending that "science" backed his views did not. Remember, intellectuals and college professors were among those he specifically persecuted. This wasn't because he loved science. Hitler didn't burn books because he loved science. He didn't exactly love Jewish scientists. When Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels joined the students at a bonfire of books and declared this ..:

The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end...The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death – this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past. This is a strong, great and symbolic deed – a deed which should document the following for the world to know – Here the intellectual foundation of the November [Democratic] Republic is sinking to the ground, but from this wreckage the phoenix of a new spirit will triumphantly rise..."

The History Place - Triumph of Hitler: Burning of Books

... It wasn't because he loved science, Jews or intellectuals. I promise. Listen to the tone of the speech. It makes logic and reason the enemies of "Good Germans" and replaces that with blind faith.

This all ties in with Rep. Broun. He certainly has the same hatred of science and intellectualism. If he truly believes that science is evil and that evolution and the Big Bang Theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell," how long will it be before those books are burned?

Those who have no true grasp of science keep replacing it with religion, using their religion as a weapon against any perceived threat. We don't have Atheists, Agnostics, Free Thinkers, Secular Jews or even Pagans trying to take science out of science class while also waging a war against women's reproductive freedom. This is pretty much reserved to Christian - and Islamic - fundamentalists. Even then, most Middle Eastern countries have abortion laws which are not as restrictive as what our own religious Republicans are asking for. Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya allows for abortions to be performed in order to save a woman's life, which is something that is still opposed by many on the right as well as the Catholic Church. (Remember the nun in Arizona who was initially excommunicated for allowing a first trimester abortion to save the life of a young mother?) Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Sudan allow for abortions in many additional circumstances. Tunisia has (at least for now) allowed for abortion upon request. In Latin America, it's not coincidental that South America's most secular country has just legalized elective abortion. Secular countries have the most liberal laws regrading women's reproductive health because they are not beholden to theocratic views. They also embrace science for precisely the same reason.

We should remember why.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Another reason to prefer science over narrow interpretations of God: Science doesn't need anti-psychotic drugs or a few lessons in anger management.

Beck: God ‘guided’ Romney to lose final debate

Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck says that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost the final debate because he was “being guided” by God to be “less contentious” and agree with President Barack Obama.

Although Obama was aggressive throughout the Monday’s debate, Romney used a softer strategy, repeatedly endorsing the current administration’s positions on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the use of drones. The tactic clearly worked for the president because instant polls conducted by CBS News and CNN showed that he won decisively.

While conservative columnist Ann Coulter joked that Romney was simply being “kind and gentle to the retard,” Beck was clearly disgusted with the Republican nominee’s performance, tweeting, “I am so glad mitt agrees with Obama so much. No, really. Why vote?”

But by Tuesday, the conservative radio host seemed to have come to terms with Romney’s loss, chalking it up to God’s will.

“I believe Mr. Romney prays on his knees every day,” Beck said during his radio program. “I know he prays before the debate. I don’t know if it was the right thing, but I believe he’s being guided. And I believe he feels it’s important to be less contentious. It may be that he’s doing exactly what the Lord wants him to do right now.”

“A lot of people who are conservatives who have been walking down this road for a long time, we wanted him to eviscerate the president last night, metaphorically speaking. But our ways aren’t necessarily His ways. And I hope and pray and believe Mitt Romney is trying to seek out His way.

Read full story here.

In other news, God went off his meds today.....

 

[nameless]