Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GodGunsGuts

I believe those who use government to enforce their monopolies know exactly what they’re doing. They know that they’re using force to make others comply with their will.

Just as it would be if there were two competing products, and one producer used physical intimidating force to keep the other out of the market,

so it is in the marketplace of ideas.

The one using force has voluntarily taken the moral low ground, and in so doing, admitted that their product or idea cannot compete with other products/ideas.

This is why I do not advocate doing what the ACLU did -

first they argued for “neutrality”, then they used the leftist judiciary to monopolize the education environment.

I advocate not moving beyond the neutrality position. Contrary to SOME FReepers’ claims, our country would not, demonstrably, be a “theocracy” if we were to go back to post-Scopes, where evolution was taught, but questions were also allowed to be raised.


187 posted on 08/25/2008 1:12:00 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]


To: MrB
Contrary to SOME FReepers’ claims, our country would not, demonstrably, be a “theocracy” if we were to go back to post-Scopes, where evolution was taught, but questions were also allowed to be raised.

The highest standard of living and the most freedoms are enjoyed by those nations which are demonstrably Judeo/Christian, both in history and presently.

This fear that we'd go back to barbarism is totally unfounded. Science has much more to fear from atheistic thinking and politics that it ever did from Christian thinking and politics.

Christian thinking and politics gave us the nation we have today. Going back to those days, when our country was at its greatest, couldn't happen soon enough.

189 posted on 08/25/2008 1:45:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: MrB
Revisionist History.

The Scopes trial challenged the law that made it illegal to teach Evolution in Science class, and Scopes lost, meaning it was still illegal to teach Evolution in Science class after Scopes.

So your statement “our country would not, demonstrably, be a “theocracy” if we were to go back to the post-Scopes, where evolution was taught, but questions were also allowed to be raised” is just so much ignorant and/or revisionist dreck.

How many other Scientific theories do Creationists think it should be illegal to teach in Science class?

How many non-science ideas do Creationists think should be required to be taught in Science class?

What do Creationists have against teaching Science in Science class?

191 posted on 08/25/2008 1:54:01 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson