Posted on 02/07/2005 3:50:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Again you err, these men are filled with the same knowlege because many of them are phd's and such and have worked in the field.
You missed it again.
Sorry, but most living things have neither mouths, nor eyes, nor noses.
The correct title is:
"Biblical Christians fight the Religious Left for the heart of America"
"Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).
.....Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): “All effective action requires the passport of morality.”
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states “that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”
Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated. ....."
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Alinsky-SaulRef.html
*
Jim Wallis Ed. Sojourners Magazine March/April 2000 issue
Saul Alinsky Goes to Church
Faith-based community organizing is taking off---with benefits for both community and church.
by Helene Slessarev
The origins of community organizing are generally traced to the pioneering work of Saul Alinsky, who built the first community organizing effort in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood in the 1930s. Alinsky created the early community-based efforts by organizing existing groups into collective action around particular issues.
Today many communities are much less cohesive, so it is necessary to build relationships first and then take on issues that grow out of those stronger bonds. In poorer communities, churches are often experiencing the same loss of cohesiveness as they struggle to survive in an increasingly barren environment. Thus, organizing becomes a means for such congregations to reconnect with their own members and with the broader community around them. ... [snip]
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=Soj0003&article=000311
*
Book: The Religious Left - Who they are and what they believe - by Dr. Ronald H. Nash, PhD.
http://www.kfuo.org/ie_main.htm has the audio of an interview with Ron Nash. On right side of page, click on October 2004 Scroll down to October 11.
Evolution makes no claims about God, but it also doesn't go out of its way to make people who adhere to any specific religious beliefs happy either. It simply goes where the evidence leads. Members of many religious groups have a problem with anyone who doesn't immediately recognize that their belief is the only true belief and will label anyone or anything that doesn't adhere strictly to the "true doctrine" as atheistic.
The DNA of chimpanzees and gorillas are also slightly different, but both are great apes. Try again.
Our DNA is very close to that of great apes. That's all I said. Nothing more. It was in response to a question.
You've lost me. Were we arguing about something?
I thought that you were pointing out small differences in DNA as a defining characteristic proving that humans are not great apes. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post.
Well, you posted an interesting comparison. Unfortunately, all you've done is list some of the defining characteristics of humans. That does not mean that they are not apes, because none of these things are defining characteristics of apes.
I still don't consider myself a great ape.
Spoken language is not a physical difference. Taken as a form of communication, it's not all that different from the rudimentary hoots used by chimpanzees to convey information to one another. Indeed, when it comes to learned languages, chimps, gorillas and orangutans pick up a rather complex understanding of human spoken language, and chimps and gorillas have proven adept at learning sign language or communicating through simple keyboards.
My dog understands English. Big deal.
Okay. I'll give you that.
"Religious right fights science for the heart of America [Evolution vs. Creationism]"
Fairly obvious how objective (LOL) this "journalist it!
LOL!!!
It never occurs to them that science actually supports Creation! Nah, it's a "religion". LOL! If anything "evolution" is a "religion" that defies all the laws of science as well as reality.
Slightly different from a chimp, which is slightly different from a gorilla. That's what makes us separate species, but human beings are still great apes.
Have they? Where are their papers on Evolutionary biology? Their affiliation with research labs or biology departments at non-religious institutions?
I was looking for a table that placed the differences side-by-side. It happened to be from that website. The chart is cool nonetheless, and points out some of the major physical differences between us 'apes'.
Not every person who is conservative is anti-science, but almost everyone who is anti-science is conservative.
Exactly. The capacity for language is not solely the domain of man. Dogs themselves communicate with us by various means. I can tell by my dogs' barks, for instance, whether a person is walking past the house, or whether it's another dog.
I do not have the refrence at work, but there is a breakdown of the first chapter of Genesis that discusses the poetic structure of the days of creation. The first three days are paralleled to the last three days. Days 1 and 4 are parallels (creation of light on the 1st day and the creation of the sun, stars and moon on the 4th), same with 2 and 5 (ocean and sky on the 2nd and fish and birds on the 5th) and 4 and 6 (land and plants on the 3rd and all animals, including man, on the 6th). It is not a common interpretation for biblical literalists, but this structure of writing is analagous to that time period and I'm sure plenty of strict literalist that will strenuously object to this interpretation. Then again, it does not mention the basic other basic phyla such as fungi and prokaryotes so those are mislabeled according to science. They don't fit into the Genesis assignments.
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.