Posted on 04/01/2005 4:46:09 PM PST by Pikamax
Evolution is not hatred of religion, but a scientific theory, warts and all, and should be taught that way. (I had a year of paleontology, and there are warts on that theory). Even the religious should be familliar with the theory if they are to disagree with it, otherwise, they cannot do so intelligently.
As for archaeology, I have done that, too, although not in the Holy Land, and unless they find THE body, my religious beliefs will not be swayed.
Most archaeological finds there have not only not been in conflict with the Bible, but have confirmed events recorded therein.
Frankly, at this point, I'd use Biblical accounts to look for sites, rather than look for sites in an effort to disprove the Bible, but that is just my common sense, results oriented, belief (don't waste your funding, find something!).
We start looking for shipwrecks or other archaeological finds based on historical accounts, why not use the Hebrews' accounts to look for sites there?
Religious or historical accounts should have some basis in fact, whether that has decrepitated to legend or not. Only by pursuing these leads can we confirm or refute them. Much of American history has degenerated to popular fable, and this will provide rich provender for those who wish to delve past the surface and do good research from surviving original documents and archaeological data.
What I don't understand is how you could equate these with the gratuitous exposition of racially demeaning idealogy from the lectern in classes where it is not part of the subject matter.
I agree with neither of the idealogies (Nazi or Communist), but understand, as the founders did, that the way to strip any idealogy or any other onerous systems of belief of their semblance of legitimacy is to let them be discussed openly, in the proper forum.
Most deeply flawed belief systems only work as a closed system. To keep those systems closed, secretive, or allow them to portray themselves somehow as victimized, only adds strength to their rhetoric.
If, as I believe, individual freedom is indeed the best system, then denying freedom of expression to counter-idealogies not only weakens the cause of freedom prima facie, but makes it hypocritical.
This is no better than the thought muzzling effects of 'political correctness'.
I believe the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can survive the onslaught of a few more flawed ideaolgies, but only if those are exposed for what they are in open, rational discussion, by standing by the fundamental belief that Rights are not Rights if they are not Rights for all.
Becoming totalitarian to eliminate the totalitarians is not the solution.
The lunatic fringes define, to some degree, the center. To eliminate them merely permits the fringe to be redefined, as the Communist elements of the Democratic Party have been doing to Conservatives for decades.
It is only this progression which has allowed people like Chuck Schumer to define the NRA as "extremist", for example. By denying that their own fringe elements are extremist (when was the last time you heard the SPLC or the VPC defined as left-wing extremists?) the center, politically speaking, is shifted to the left.
Exposing both extremes of the spectrum for what they are not only discredits the fringe idealogies, but maintains balance in the rest of discourse.
I guess tenure does have its limits,after all.
I wonder if he got a huge buyout like Colorado was contemplating for Ward Churchill.
There is a similar possible scenario in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, which I would not completely put past the Clinton Dirty Tricks department.
In reality, I think there was a flawed sting operation going on and things didn't get shut down in time. Just my own tinfoil hat belief.
However, Pierce's exposure for what he was effectively colored his statements and made him ineffective to all but the most willing to believe.
This guy never avowed his personal beliefs on the job, at least not in a way which his students could discern, and apparently treated all with courtesy in that venue. Even retail sales clerks will do the same with those they cannot stand, simply because it is their job.
Sure, Pluss is probably the poster child for Aryan victimhood, and imho, that was stupid. It only adds strength to any statement of victimhood he can muster.
It would have been far wiser for the administration to expose (leak) his beliefs and let the campus environment do the rest.
If kids were stupid enough to buy BS, the Democrats would be far more successful with their on-campus voting drives.
A threat to our God-given Rights, Constitutionally enumerated or not, is a threat, no matter the claimed affiliations or idealogy of the source.
I've never confused statistical or scientific data with the "rhetoric" of racial supremacy...or used it "as supporting evidence for some ideology defaming all members of that race". It was Pluss who did that and I would have no difficulty in arguing with him about it...which is why I've supported his right to free speech.
We do, however, differ in our assessment of the policy implications implied by differing explanations or those differences, and by their possible size.
True, but religion also has warts - big ones - and should be treated similarly...and that's very difficult to do.
Most archaeological finds there have not only not been in conflict with the Bible, but have confirmed events recorded therein.
For a good summary of the current state of biblical archeology (and scholarship) try
Who were the Early Israelites and Where did they come from?
by William G. Dever
I brought this up because the analogy to the topic of the thread seemed good; In both cases strongly held views are being challanged and in both cases the best way to deal with the conflict is public debate...or so it seems to me.
Strike that. It just confuses things.
"But it's not even in the same class..." /sarcasm
I bear no prejudice against anyone, but if you want to be American, be an American, and do away with the rest. Maybe then American Culture can be defined again instead of the polyglot we have now.
I do not define myself as an English-American, my ancestors fought to free themselves of the English government, but retained elements of that culture, especially the language and English Common Law, and built on the precepts of the Magna Carta to make their small contribution to what became one of a group of fledgling nations huddled on one edge of a vast continent. That those nations sought mutual security and the benefit of free trade and a unifying currency later morphed into, amidst blood and grapeshot, a National government, and eventually, through intervention in foreign wars, a "Superpower".
With great power comes great responsibility, but that responsibility is in great measure to ensure that the Republic often mis-decribed as the 'bastion of Democracy' does not rot from within.
We can no more give freedom to the rest of the world than we can give an education to someone. Either is a prize to be sought, and while tutoring, mentoring, and occasionally mediation may be warranted, meddling is counterproductive.
The recipient must earn the prize, otherwise it is meaningless.
Only the those who seem to secretly desire World Government truly embrace overly widespread and unnecessary military involvement, but the example of the Roman Legions scattered throughout the Empire while Barbarian hordes were bribed to not sack the City of the Seven Hills stands as a stark historical reminder to all who would see what awaits such folly. Certain parallels exist which echo the internal decay of the Roman Empire as well.
If global government is inevitable, it is a given that we would want to be the formative agent thereof, but I neither believe that Global Government is inevitable nor desireable.
Thanks for the reference, I'll try to chase that down.
You didn't notice it, I don't care if you're his grandkids or if you live in his home.
You meaning you, it meaning NBF's name, his grandkids the real NBF's grandkids, his home the real NBF's home. Put it together, means that even if you were that close to the real NBF, it disn't help you identify the dreaded NBF, you just pigybacked your phony outrage on someone else's question.
You are becoming most tiresome. I had people like you in class. Always asking questions where the real intent was to show everyone else how brilliant your are, bah! Yeah you take on all comers you tough guy you, how many people have you brought to your point of view?
Including calling someone you don't even know a racist? Did it ever occur to you two that maybe he picked that name to give people the vapors? It must be tough living your life in a permanent state of outrage.
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.