Sadly the irony might be lost on most...
Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
Don't lump the rest of us in with whatever Freeper threw that Satanism remark out. If you feel like you get to paint every one of us who doesn't buy into "goo to you" with the same broad brush, you're no better than the guy you're criticizing.
I don't care about those countries. I am an American and I care about America.
Christian, Muslim... makes little difference. I don't want the State promoting any religion.
I'm still waiting for MetMom to tell me if that is suppressing religion.
Define religion. Whatever one places their trust, belief, and work to and for can be a religion. Darwinism is a religion and the government promotes it using their so called scientific methodology as instruction manual.
Sadly the irony might be lost on most...
Don't forget that truth is a word best avoided in science so science can't declare that something is true.
I was not addressing the question to you. If I had, I would have been sure not to use the word "true," because I know you like to play coy little games with the different definitions of "truth," and I would have avoided giving you another opportunity to do that.
I addressed the question to wagglebee, who in an earlier post wrote, "I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that." That indicated to me that he was holding open the possibility that it was true (his word), so I wondered what he thought we should do if it was true AND had inspired evil deeds.
You're welcome to answer the question as a hypothetical, if you wish. Subsitute "well-founded" or "accurate" for "true," if that makes it easier.
Semantic word games aren’t what I’m looking for. Save it. I’m waiting for MetMom to tell me if I’m suppressing religion.
It's difficult to address this properly, since Gramsci's techniques *work* -- for both sides.
If you get people into a particular mindset, they become inured to contradictory evidence: they tend to reject anything which tends to go against their adopted worldview.
This applies to liberal vs. conservative, Catholic vs. Protestant, Creationist vs. Evo.
The evo's would get a lot more buy-in if they'd just phrase it like this:
"I know *you* don't want to accept evolution. And I understand you don't want your kids having things shoved down their throat at school which *you* disagree with -- as with sex strikeindoctrination education. However, if we taught things the way you liked, a lot of kids who would otherwise be neutral, would end up being resistant to learning about evolution scientifically later on, when they have the intellectual wherewithal to handle it. The problem is not that we want to indoctrinate people -- the problem is that a lot of people, for the sake of wanting to avoid evolution, will shy away from careers in biology, medicine, and drug development, and we need all the folks in those fields we can get. In addition, of those that *do* go into those fields, we will have to work extra hard to overcome their resistance, when we should be getting on with all of the other time-consuming and necessar work of training them."
But, of course, they don't. They engage in foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole, and bigoted stereotyping, and turn off a lot of the "middle 20%" who would otherwise support them: although with the dumbing down of education, you are getting now > 20% in the middle...
...and to make it worse, those 20% are not rejecting Christianity (superstition, the scientists would call it) in favor of reason; they are instead descending into complete paganism, and complete nonsense. Christianity has a fine historical record of learning and respect for the mind, and Christianity provided the philosophical bedding for empiricism (a rational God left his mark by creating a rational universe; we can understand God by examining His handiwork; which morphed over time to "Cool! If we figure out how this works, we can control it" and then to "screw just controlling it, we can get RICH" and finally to "who needs God anyway?" These are all labeled by historical association "science" but they are not all really science.)
Cheers!
Merci, mon ami!
Cheers!
Not even France? The home of Voltaire and Gibbon? Falling to the jihadists?
Christian, Muslim... makes little difference. I don't want the State promoting any religion.
But the State is not promoting the religion by allowing Free Exercise.
See my first vanity on Free Republic, on this topic, too. Click here.
Cheers!
When perusing these threads, especially this one, a reader might conceivably not know of which group you refer.
I sometimes forget to include and italicize the point I am responding to, especially when the thread is "going hot".
Cheers!
France is France’s problem, not mine.
Since you were mentioned in the post, I include you in my response.
The scientific methodology is nothing but semantic word games The majority attribute religion requiring God, god, or gods but honest minds also acknowledge that religion is also a cause, principle, or SYSTEM of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
In order for the scientific methodology to be adhered to there is NO outside God, origin, let alone a Creator allowed in the system.
However, even the very foundation of this system think stems from a hot steamy pot of primordial soup, wherein one single cell got hot and bothered and reproduced itself. But of course the claim is that evolution does not address that very foundation. Of course it does not address the primordial pot because it cannot be reproduced. When that hot steamy pot can be reproduced and via modern technology a flesh human created then toe has clout.
You think the Heavenly Father did not know what His children would come up with to explain their existence?
So you lack compassion: or is your opposition to state-funded religion not really a principle?
Do you remember Joe Mauldin's quote to the Army brass about the morale-destroying nature of his WW II Willie and Joe cartoons in Stars and Stripes...?
Cheers!
You were the one who made the sweeping statement.
And, do you honestly believe that Pope John Paul, II uncritically accepted the entirety of ToE, without exception? I can assure you he did not.
You still haven't bothered to read what he wrote, I see.
Or was Jesus a liar, Gumlegs?
I'll take "False Dichotomies" for one hundred, Alex.
And you still haven't bothered to answer my question, asked several times: did Pope John Paul II, and in turn the Catholic Church, give unqualified support to the Theory of Evolution?
Still can be applied to either group.
But the reason it LOOKS ambiguous, is, like I said, that the Gramscian approach of taking over an institution and thereby influencing mindsets, works, regardless of *who* is taking over the institution.
And both sides claim to be fighting for "the truth" which makes the need for popcorn all the more urgent.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.