Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[ALS]

"I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

backpeddling?

[ALS]

"But instead they attack CONTINUASLY, and do NOT give anyone a chance to find a possible middle ground."

hmmmm...

What middle ground do you propose?

[Aric2000]

What the devil are you talking about?

I love PRESIDENT BUSH, I have never said that I didn't, he is tolerant of others beliefs, but most of all, HE CARES about the oath he took to the constitution.

As long he protects the constitution, and does ALL he can to uphold his oath, I couldn't care less what his religious beliefs are.

He has EXCELLENT cconservative ideas, I don't agree on everything he does, but a vast majority of what he does I agree with TOTALLY.

You are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, you lie without remorse because it is for god, you attack others without remorse, because it is for god, you cut and paste and hack without remorse because it is for god, you do not tell others your beliefs because you are afraid they will do to you, what you do to them.

You are the type of taliban fundamentalist that I am talking about, YOU are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, because you would shred the constitution if it allowed your beliefs more power.

YOU frighten me, because you would do it for god, and would have NO remorse in doing it.

At least that is the impression that I have gotten from your incessant attacks and nonsense.

Note to moderators, this is STRICTLY my opinion and my opinion only, it is NOT an attack, I am merely sharing my impressions of his posting style and attitude.

[Stultis]

So you don't agree with the big fear factor on fundamentalists by the evos in these threads?

No, but why do you need to ask? After all you made several replies to #1701 where I specifically addressed this, describing a couple of my fellow evos as "overly paranoid" on this point. I've expressed the same views in several other posts. Are you slow today, or just desperately seeking traction?

[Aric2000]

No getting MORE specific...

[ALS]

You said, "I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

backpeddling?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That was always a hopeless dream.

Probably original sin. I'm still hopeful. We elected Eisenhower and Reagan twice. We'll probably always be dangling on the edge.

[ALS]

Your boy said, "I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

who's paranoid?

[Stultis]

He's right about you. He's paranoid, however, to the extent that he believes your type has any real influence in politics, or on FR.

[Stultis]

He's also wrong (to the extent that) he believes that your type is respresentative even among "fundamentalists". Anyway, I have lots more respect for fundamentalists than to think that.

[ALS]

In fact, this is more of what he said:

"I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here.

They are trying to take over this website and make it their own. THe old assimilate or perish Borg trick.

They Are WAY right wing and will push this website that direction as well, as the constitutionalist conservatives, meaning myself and others, Libertarian constitutionalists, and just plain old conservatives will be chased off this site because of the abuse brought on to them by the fundamentalists that have NO tolerance for anyone that does not agree 100% with what they believe."


Fundamentalists is plural. You had no problem casting the net. Now you want to revise and extend your remarks to carefully select out those YOU wish to relabel as whatever you want, but the problem there is that there are those on here that have stated they are fundamentalists. You didn't exclude them beforehand, so attempting that now is, well, backpeddling.

wonder why? Was your statement bogus?

[ALS]

What is my type?

[Aric2000]

Stultis,

I believe that you are correct, they have no REAL political influence, but they will be used as an example by the opposition to be used against us.

That is where their power comes from, to allow others to put us in the same mold as they are, and that WILL lose us elections. They might not have the power to get elected and hurt our country the way I think they would, but they do have the power to get others elected that I believe could.

[ALS]

"I believe that you are correct, they have no REAL political influence"

Then what's your worry, backpeddler?

[bondserv]

This isn't about forcing you guys to become Bible believing Christians. Only God has that kind of power.

Our job, and as a Christian country from the start, has been and is to expose people to the love, truth and righteousness of God.

Our concern is that libertarians will marginalize the moral core of our communities, states and nation. If we open the AMORAL door to become a more powerful influence in our party, we will cease being the:
Pro-family
Pro-academic integrity (The greatest Universities in our nation were founded as Christian ministerial training facilities)
Pro-life
Pro-marriage between one man and one woman
Pro-capital punishment
Pro-corporal punishment (we love our children and believe corporal punishment should be administered only with good intentions for the child, by the parents)
Pro-individual accountability
Pro-national and state sovereignty
Anti-drugs
Anti-divorce
Anti-adultery
Anti-child abuse (In all of its perverted liberal iterations)
Anti-lawyer (1 in 1000 operate with moral integrity, maybe fewer, this is a major blight on our nation, we need a complete overhaul of the judicial system putting it back to its original guidelines)

Hopefully you are on the same page, for these are common sense ideas pertaining to rightousness, and good for our nation. Notice there is no "force my religion on you" on the list.

[ALS]

"That is where their power comes from, to allow others to put us in the same mold as they are, and that WILL lose us elections. They might not have the power to get elected and hurt our country the way I think they would, but they do have the power to get others elected that I believe could."

Right back to bashing fundamentalists again. Are you sure you're sure about what you are sure about?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

You are the type of taliban fundamentalist that I am talking about, YOU are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, because you would shred the constitution if it allowed your beliefs more power.

Good thing you weren't present during the Constitutional debates and signing. The place was positively packed with fundamentalists. They would have looked on Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and Reed as liberals. Oh but wait...They gave us that Constitution, a document many of them said was written for a moral and religious people, fit for a Christian nation.

[ALS]

Thanks bondserv. What we really have here is just the opposite of the claims being made. We have those that don't want us to stand up for our beliefs, by those that want their beliefs to be the law of the land. Is it any small wonder why we have a problem?

The paranoid stuff is quite silly.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The bottom line is that an omnipotent deity does not require government support in schools.

The government doesn't pay for anything. It's all us, our neighbors and other Americans. I don't favor radicalizing school age boys, by the way.

In the information age, I don't think schools should look anything like they currently do. But I don't see any big changes until local governments start going bankrupt. If they hadn't legalized gambling, we might have gotten there already.

[ALS]

Odd thing is, he said earlier that he wasn't a conservative, he was a constitutionalist.

I wonder if the framers would agree?