Onward Christian soldiers! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 01-16-2005, 10:09 PM

Interesting article from today's Sydney Morning Herald.

Quote:

Onward the new Christian soldier
Evangelists who hold the Bible as literal truth are reshaping the face of modern Christianity, writes Paul Sheehan.

Hundreds of millions of people believe the Bible is the literal truth. God created the world in six days, 6000 years ago. Evolution is wrong. Soon these beliefs will be exhibited in a state-of-the-art, multimillion-dollar museum that portrays and honours the beliefs of creationists. It is called the Creation Museum.

Only in America, you might think. Yes, the first stage of the museum is nearing completion in northern Kentucky. Yet the vision and drive for the museum has come largely from an Australian, Ken Ham, a former high school teacher from Brisbane. Ham is president of Answers in Genesis, one of the largest evangelical congregations in the United States.

He is also a warrior. "It's a war, it's a real battle between world views," he says of the battle against secularism and for the hearts and minds of Christians. He describes the Answers in Genesis ministry as "a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse".

There will be plenty of "apologetics" when the Creation Museum opens this year. It will be dominated by life-size dinosaurs and large movie screens depicting epics from the Old Testament. A planetarium will demonstrate how God made the Earth in six days. Inside a re-creation of Noah's Ark visitors will hear water lapping outside, and perhaps even people screaming. (That touch is still under consideration.)

Animated figures will re-create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with a Tyrannosaurus rex pursuing them after their fall from grace. Dinosaurs feature prominently in the museum, and will form the visual centrepiece and a marketing key for children.

Readers may ask how a modern museum could depict dinosaurs and humans cohabiting the Earth when the fossil and geological records show dinosaurs and humans missed each other by about 60 million years. In response to such yawning contradictions, Ham advises people (in one of the many video clips available on the Answers in Genesis website) to offer this omnibus retort: "Were you there?"

Creation Museum will provide the Biblical interpretation of the mass extinction of the dinosaurs in a display known as "The Fate of the Dinosaurs". The room will shake and rumble as a dinosaur walks by. Visitors may even feel the creature's warm breath on their necks. A display showing ancient Babylon will feature the Tower of Babel. Another exhibit will lay responsibility for AIDS on homosexuals. Disease and famine will be portrayed as the byproducts of mankind's fall from grace. The climax of the exhibitions will be the life of Christ with a three-dimensional depiction of the crucifixion. A "Bible Authority Room" will warn visitors: "Everyone who rejects His history - including six-day creation and Noah's flood - is 'wilfully ignorant.' "

All this will cost at least $US20 million ($26 million), with room for expansion. Answers in Genesis is seeking to raise the funds by selling 20,000 charter memberships of the museum at $US1000 apiece. The museum's site has been chosen for its strategic location. It is six kilometres from an airline hub, Greater Cincinnati International Airport, and near Florence, Kentucky, headquarters of the Answers in Genesis worldwide ministry. As Ham explains, "One of the main reasons we moved there was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 per cent of America's population."

Sixty-nine per cent of America is a very big market: 200 million of America's 290 million people, including the entire American south. The potential market for the Creation Museum is huge. In a Gallup poll in 2003, 46 per cent of Americans described themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Opinion polls have shown that more Americans believe in creationism than evolution. The President, George Bush, has been careful not to criticise creationism.

Even the huge evangelical population in the US is dwarfed by the numbers of evangelical, born-again, fundamentalist and conservative Christians in Latin America, which has almost 500 million Christians, Africa 360 million, and Asia more than 300 million. Evangelism is the boom area of global Christianity. In America, polls show two-thirds of Americans favour teaching both creationism and evolution in schools.

Not many people in Australia paid much attention to Ham before he moved to the US from Queensland in 1987, along with his wife, Mally. They have five children. After completing a bachelor's degree in applied science (biology) and a diploma of education, Ken Ham taught science in Queensland high schools before committing full-time to creationism. His ministry's website describes the journey: "Over 20 years ago, Dr Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and others saw that the church in their own country, Australia, was struggling and often compromising its biblical integrity in the face of the ever-increasing attacks from those hostile to Christianity. They realised that most Christians were not equipped to provide answers to a doubting world in a so-called age of science."

Ham's move to America has proved to be highly successful - he is one of the most influential creationists in the world - and in the American south and Midwest he is tilling some of the world's most fertile ground for adherence to the literal meaning of the Bible. The battle with secularism is ceaseless. Last Thursday, a US federal judge ordered schools in an Atlanta suburb to remove stickers placed in biology textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact".

Judge Clarence Cooper concluded the stickers, although worded to avoid religious reference, amounted to an endorsement of "Christian fundamentalist or creationist" beliefs. The Cobb County School Board adopted the stickers in 2002 after parents protested against sections on evolution in a new biology textbook.

Creationism may be regarded as closed and dangerously regressive by secular liberals, who dominate the Western media, but it is the muscular intransigence of creationists and the zeal of evangelists who are reshaping Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century. "The era of Western Christianity has passed within our lifetimes, and the day of Southern Christianity is dawning," Professor Philip Jenkins wrote in his book The Next Christendom (2002). "The face of change is undeniable ... So little did we notice this momentous change that it was barely mentioned in all the media hoopla surrounding the end of the second millennium."

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/...810774805.html

People are entitled to believe what they wish. So what if 20,000 charter memberships to the museum? I'm totally OK with this. The only issue is when Creationism and fundamentalism begins to affect the organs of government. In my opinion this is a bad thing.

I find it interesting that we're seeing the effects of fundamentalism not only in the Middle East but now it is rearing its head in "the West" as well.

Thoughts?

I'm also surprised to hear that "two thirds" of Americans favour the teaching of Creationism along with evolution in schools. I had thought the number was far less. I'm also a bit unsure as to religious studies in American schools. Is religion taught there at all?

I was educated by the (now infamous) Christian Brothers. It never did me any harm. The Catholic Faith does not argue against evolutionism; indeed, it accepts it. Perhaps it's just the "evangelical" and fundamentalist Christian churches that support Creationism.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-16-2005, 10:27 PM

I don't get how establishing the fact that evolution is a theory equates to "Christian Fundamentalism". At any rate, last time I checked America is a free country, let these people put up a museum to there liking. Also I don't get how "fundamentalism" is rearing it's ugly head as a result of a museum for crazy folk being built, maybe a political force, but not as a corporeal political power.

Also I'm with you, k-12 at private Catholic schools, I'm not as crazy as these folks in the article.

Mephisto2 · 01-16-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I don't get how establishing the fact that evolution is a theory equates to "Christian Fundamentalism".

Because Creationism is based upon a "fundamental" interpretation of the Bible. By definition, it's fundamentalist.

Quote:

At any rate, last time I checked America is a free country, let these people put up a museum to there liking.

Isn't that what I said?

Quote:

Also I don't get how "fundamentalism" is rearing it's ugly head as a result of a museum for crazy folk being built, maybe a political force, but not as a corporeal political power.

I didn't say it was rearing its ugly head as a result of the musuem. I said it was interesting that its reasing its ugly head on both sides of the spectrum. This is just one example of how Christian fundamentalism is enjoying a resurgence.

Quote:

Also I'm with you, k-12 at private Catholic schools, I'm not as crazy as these folks in the article.

Yeah. Good old Catholic education. It made me who I am. As they say "once a Catholic, always a Catholic." Christianity shaped my personal moral code. I just don't believe I'll burn in hell for all eternity for shouting "Jesus" when I hit my finger with a hammer...

Mr Mephisto

The_Dunedan · 01-16-2005, 10:58 PM

Mr. Mephisto;
I picked up quite a few good-old-fashioned Catholic oaths while I was visiting your countrymen a few years back. They used to say that a Druid's cursing could blister paint; I'm off to a good start!

Mephisto2 · 01-16-2005, 11:08 PM

My of my old favourites is Sweet suffering Jesus!!!.

Mrs Mephisto still laughs at the time I screamed this when I jumped into a (very very) hot bath we ran at a hotel room during our first week together. I literally had burns on my body.

Heh... good memories.

Mr Mephisto

onodrim · 01-16-2005, 11:19 PM

Ken Ham is a scarey guy, my parents listen to him all the time. I believe they even bought me a book by him once. *shudder*

He's by far one of the most conservative fundamentalists out there, and hearing about him building this doesn't surprise me at all.

arch13 · 01-16-2005, 11:27 PM

This is the part the worries me:

Quote:

Another exhibit will lay responsibility for AIDS on homosexuals.

Now this is a free country. It has been well said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."

That being true, this bothers me. For no other reason than this same group would be up in arms if I rented billboards along a highway and printed on them "Southern Baptists have more mentally retartded children." Neither is based in any fact, but they would be fireing up the courts for lawsuits if I did such a thing. Now if anyone sued over their message, well then "They are once again abusing the court system to try and remove our fredom of speech." I could see it now.

For the record, I had no problem with the Georgia stickers. I believe in evolution, but there are questions many have, and evolution has not been proved fact through science. therfore, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Saying that Homosexuals cuased AIDS however, is simply despicable, and I would love the idea of renting billboards in this town and putting up anti-Christian messages just to play devils advocate totheir display. The response would be something akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-16-2005, 11:35 PM

For the sake of argument...

Quote:

AIDS rate for homosexuals climbs; data called 'astonishing'
Dec 2, 2004
By Michael Foust
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--New statistics showing that homosexual men make up 44 percent of all new HIV and AIDS cases underscore the fact that homosexuality itself is unnatural, a prominent leader in the ex-homosexual community says.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data Dec. 2 showing that the number of newly diagnosed HIV and AIDS cases has increased 11 percent among homosexual men. The data spanned a four-year period ending in 2003.

Despite the fact that homosexual men make up only 1 to 2 percent of the population, they nonetheless made up more than 40 percent of the new cases, the data showed.

Tim Wilkins, head of Cross Ministry, Inc. -- a Christian outreach to homosexuals -- called the data "astonishing."

"If homosexuality was normal and natural, you would not have a disease that spreads as ravenously as this does," said Wilkins, who is married now but once was involved in homosexuality.

Homosexual activists responded to the news by calling for better education and prevention -- for instance, the promotion of condom usage. But Wilkins said the problem can be found in homosexual sex itself. Men were not made to have sex with men, he said.

"All of mankind is physiologically heterosexual -- that's just a fact," Wilkins said. "One hundred percent of the homosexual community is physiologically heterosexual.

"We can throw more and more money, bigger budgets, bigger programs, more education [at the problem]. And we see that education is not correcting the problem at all."

For years, studies have shown that homosexual men are prone to promiscuity. A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexuals in Chicago’s Shoreland area had more than 30 sexual partners. Perhaps just as telling, some two-thirds of same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts have involved lesbians -- underscoring, pro-family leaders say, the notion that homosexual men are less prone to commitment.

"[The CDC] statistic obviously shows a pathology that indicates an abnormality," Wilkins said. "From a Christian perspective we would call it sin."

Such statistics should result in the scientific community re-evaluating its position on homosexuality, Wilkins said.

The Christian church, though, should not respond by saying, "I told you so," Wilkins said. Instead, the church should respond with compassion.

"We can't allow sin in any form to repulse us from reaching out to people who are hurting," he said. "As horrible as AIDS is, it can be -- and I believe it is -- an opportunity for the church to reach people who are broken."

I'm of the belief that AIDS is not the bane of homosexuality, and that yes it is in extremely bad taste for these people to do it. But hey, maybe there is something to it, and you don't have to make it an issue of religion or god.

Also in light of the information put forth in the article, I think it would've been about 1million times better and legitimate if all mention of God and what is or is not natural be removed.

The_Dunedan · 01-16-2005, 11:37 PM

Sweet Suffering Jesus! ( Sudden shock or pain )

Holy Sweet Mary Mother of God!! ( Old standby. )

Christ On The Cross! ( Good for "I can't believe you did that!" situations )

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! ( To cover ALL the bases. )

Oh, Jesus Wept! ( Especially good for when you recieve bad news. )

Jesus Christ In Heaven! ( This one's good for extreme pain; you san still enunciate properly through clenched teeth. )

Mephisto2 · 01-16-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

I believe in evolution, but there are questions many have, and evolution has not been proved fact through science.

Well many will argue that it has. In fact, most scientists will. Hell, even the Vatican accepts it.

Many will also argue that you can't "prove" anything, but simply observe behaviour and/or results. There's not much you can say to that, other than you would be beginning to discuss the epistemological nuances of knowledge itself.

Mr Mephisto

Zeld2.0 · 01-16-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

. I believe in evolution, but there are questions many have, and evolution has not been proved fact through science. therfore, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

That is the spin created by those against the theory of evolution.

Scientists are often quick to point out that science isn't out to prove what is there - it is out to disprove what is false.

Furthermore, science is not absolute - it evolves and changes.

Take for example this:

Long ago, people believed the Earth was flat.

That was disproved by scientific method through looking at the shadow on the moon during an eclipse, through looking at ships dip below the horizon on the ocean, through exploration, and so on.

People once believed the universe revolved around the Earth. Since then we have found out that we revolve around the Sun which is in turn orbitting the center of the Milky Way, one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

Then there is the statement that all zebra's have stripes. Science doesn't prove that zebras have stripes - indeed, it is impossible. To prove that statement, one would have to check every zebra that ever existed and will exist to make sure they have stripes. Should one zebra show up with no stripes, that statement will be false. Science isn't out to prove something is true - its out to prove the other situations don't work. And through that, science is able to evolve and adapt to new things. The original theory of evolution has in itself evolved to adapt to what we discover daily.

And id also like to point out that when people say "oh it's just a theory, its not proof." No, the fact is, theories are tested, observed, experimented, etc. thousands if not millions of times. It is a very strong thing - not something someone randomly made up with a few tests in the lab. It is something that grows and changes, sure, but it is tested and supported by many.

Maybe in 100 years, the current theory of evolution is thrown out becuase something disproved it, just like science disproved spontaneous generation.

Perhaps a reason creationism and the theory of evolution is so at odds is because creationism is an absolute - there is no alternative - whereas evolution provides the theory with the room to change, mold, and in itself evolve: in other words, there is no absolute.

Mephisto2 · 01-17-2005, 12:05 AM

Well put Zeld.

The "Modern Synthesis" is an excellent example of how the theroy evolution has... well, evolved.

There are still many arguments as to particular aspects. Gould's support of punctuated equilibriumism is another good example.

But creationism? Well, if you believe what's written, what is there to discuss?

Mr Mephisto

Lebell · 01-17-2005, 09:55 AM

"Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ!"

-Joliet Jake

"Sweet Baby Jesus on the Half Shell!"

-my ex

arch13 · 01-17-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Well many will argue that it has. In fact, most scientists will. Hell, even the Vatican accepts it.

Many will also argue that you can't "prove" anything, but simply observe behaviour and/or results. There's not much you can say to that, other than you would be beginning to discuss the epistemological nuances of knowledge itself.

Mr Mephisto

Good sir, I for one do believe in evolution. However, Some scientests do not. In such an argument, I believe in both sides being fairly presented, then allowing the student to choose. High school and middle school kids are far better at making an informed choice than people give them credit for. I found the National Geogrphic artical "Was Darwin Wrong?" to be an increidable read that was highly educating in other theory's.

Mojo, you know what I'm going to say about that artical. It comes from a flawed source. The story commentor is neither a scientest nor anyone from the CDC. In fact that is just an opinion peice. And that last line, well I could just as easily say that a conservative christian is "broken" and it would carry the same weight of fact as his opiinions do.

Now of course, everyone would be up in arms if I made a billboard saying say, "Southern Baptists are broken.", but few flinch when a group like this calls homosexuals broken.
I think I should start writing op-ed peices for major newspapers that use the same tactic, but focus on disparrenging christianity. I suspect the reaction would be much different then.

"Pot, meet kettle."

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 11:15 AM

bah, this kind of discussion drives me nuts.

it all seems to say to people "ok, you're welcome to free speech... but just make sure that you hang your 'crazy sign' on the window so everyone knows. you're welcome to your free speech, of course you're welcome to it (we wouldn't think of abridging that)... only, can you please exercise it... over there. yeah, over there in the corner where none of the rest of us have to encounter it. yeah, wayyy over there. stay free buddy!"

what good is free speech if it doesn't have the chance to effect society (and, in a democracy, the organs of government)? what good is it to donate, shout, plan and protest if you assent to people putting you into a "crazy box" where both sides give unspoken assent to not take you seriously?

but irateplatypus... these people are against SCIENCE! science of all things... surely we must curb them if they're against science. that will ruin us all! can't you see they're crazy and must therefore be made unable to make real change in the world?

even though we're constitutional republic, we're still going to rise and fall according to the masses. the framers of the constitution knew that they were going to rely on the electorate for the integrity and advance of the nation. throwing up roadblocks (be they legal or simple sneering superiority) in front of those you think are crazy is only an effective (though not moral) tactic as long as you still have enough backing behind you.

the constitution doesn't provide for your theory of origins to be the default. the law, outside of explicit constitutional provisions, has proven pliable. the only way to combat what some feel entitled to name as crazy fundamentalists is to promote your idea in the public arenas... not to sneer and assume your idea should be there by default.

my solution? i am a devout Christian and believe God is responsible for creation, but i do not dispute that creationism is a mature theory that has a lot of good science behind it. to me, it seems that Christianity should cede to science what is science (or caesar's?) and render unto God what is God. the church has a poor track record with science (flat earth, geocentricity etc...) and has thought that their very faith hung on a scientific belief. time shows us that synthesis is possible... that synthesis is necessary. we now have a faith that is more refined and focused over the dogmatic embarrassments of the middle ages.

let's face it, those who promote evolution theories often do so in a way hostile to those of faith. equating those who have a different view of the way the universe started with mid-eastern fundamentalism is (sadly) tame compared to the things said on this board and in the public arena.
the discussion is so often framed in a way that one must accept evolution at the expense of genuine faith. they whine and moan when religion impinges on scientific advance but rush let a bloated brand of science tread on religious ground where it has no domain.

the Christian side needs to realize that their faith does not hinge on a scientific discovery. evolutionists who want people to look at their data honestly must not expect that people take evolution as a religion of its own. Christianity, science, and our nation will be edified only if all sides seek the naked truth. real truth-seekers must understand the advantages and limitations of their method.

mike059 · 01-17-2005, 11:29 AM

Evolution is just a theory, While it is a theory that I believe in, Creationism is also just a theory, one I chose to not believe in. The problem is that some groups, while demanding that I respect their views, have no respect for mine. I do defend their right to believe, will they defend mine? That is the greatest threat in this country today. Not terror or AIDS, but the lack of basic respect for another persons point of view. This intolerance is what keeps us apart as a nation and leaves this country open for ridicule and attack.

arch13 · 01-17-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

bah, this kind of discussion drives me nuts.

it all seems to say to people "ok, you're welcome to free speech... but just make sure that you hang your 'crazy sign' on the window so everyone knows. you're welcome to your free speech, of course you're welcome to it (we wouldn't think of abridging that)... only, can you please exercise it... over there. yeah, over there in the corner where none of the rest of us have to encounter it. yeah, wayyy over there. stay free buddy!"

what good is free speech if it doesn't have the chance to effect society (and, in a democracy, the organs of government)? what good is it to donate, shout, plan and protest if you assent to people putting you into a "crazy box" where both sides give unspoken assent to not take you seriously?

but irateplatypus... these people are against SCIENCE! science of all things... surely we must curb them if they're against science. that will ruin us all! can't you see they're crazy and must therefore be made unable to make real change in the world?

Who are you argueing Irate?
Everyone is this discussion seems to agree that there is more than naked science to be discussed here, and that science is not a be all end all above question.
As for free speech, well I never said they couldn't say whatever the want wherever they want. Neither did anyone else. I did say I have as much right to put up my billboards and op-ed peices.
My allusion to the pot and kettle was that this same group would then be up in arms about what I had to say, but tend to think that anyone who openly challenges their theories is simply failing to see the truth.

They can call what they want the truth, whenever and wherever they want. I can put up a billboard that says "Christianity cuases babies to die" wherever I want and call it truth. becuase neither holds an ounce of water, but both are covered by free speech. The aformentioned groups reaction to my billboard however, would be markedly different than the reaction they expect to their expressed ideas. That is the very nature of the pot calling the kettle black.

Charlatan · 01-17-2005, 11:44 AM

Lord Thunderin' Jesus (pronounced: Lard Tunderin Jaysus)

01-17-2005, 11:47 AM

You know, i've gotten really bored trying to argue with people who flagrantly ignore logic. I've just accepted that the majority of the people in this country have crazy beliefs.... hell, most people would probably think my opinions are crazy rooted predominantly in science or not. but god damned if that part about dinosaurs and people living in the same time period... where that guy answers the questioned inaccuracy with "Were YOU there?" Brilliant, and oh-so-Christian. I love the people who embody/create stereotypes and ruin it for everybody else who's just trying to figure out the lefts and rights of this crazy world.

irateplatypus · 01-17-2005, 11:50 AM

the argument is against those who think they're not infringing on people's free speech if they let them exercise it within the confines of their own community. the sort of people who don't mind what people say in their own homes... but wouldn't allow the free speech of others to have demonstratable results in the world around them. our society is set up for people to be able to effect change (within the confines of the consitution) wherever they see fit. the fact that some label them crazy fundamentalist doesn't preclude them from having the same legitimate means of effecting change that any other group has.

to be honest, i don't think any of my post was in direct response to yours.

lurkette · 01-17-2005, 12:04 PM

I'm continuously puzzled by people who insist that evolution is "just" a theory, but expect people to take literally a story about the world being created in seven days about 6,000 years ago. You cannot call them both "theories" and insist that they be given equal footing in scientific teaching when one has absolutely no valid empirical evidence! The mental acrobatics it requires to take the Bible "literally" astound me. I can only assume that Evangelicals and other fundamentalists are so incredibly frightened of the prospect of a world without Absolute Truth (according to their version of events, of course) sandwiched between leather covers that they are willing to throw common sense to the wind. Not only do they look like idiots but they degrade faith by trying to make it compete with science on its own terms. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive if you can open your mind just a crack to admit some ambiguity.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-17-2005, 12:17 PM

Arch, not to give merit to something even I find disgusting, but after reading the article I looked further into the matter. Here is something I found in a government report.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Quote:

HIV/AIDS IN THE UNITED STATES

* The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 850,000 to 950,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-quarter of whom are unaware of their infection.(2)

* Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(3,4)

* Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

* Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

* The estimated number of AIDS diagnoses through 2002 in the United States is 886,575. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 877,275, with 718,002 cases in males and 159,271 cases in females. Through the same time period, 9,300 AIDS cases were estimated in children under age 13.(5)

* The estimated number of new adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses in the United States was 43,225 in 1998, 41,134 in 1999, 42,239 in 2000, 41,227 in 2001, and 42,136 in 2002.(5)

* The estimated number of new pediatric AIDS cases (cases among individuals younger than age 13) in the United States fell from 952 in 1992 to 92 in 2002.(5)

* The estimated rate of adult/adolescent AIDS diagnoses in the United States in 2002 (per 100,000 population) was 76.4 among blacks, 26.0 among Hispanics, 11.2 among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 7.0 among whites, and 4.9 among Asians/Pacific Islanders.(5)

MEdical News today Dec 03 2004 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=17271

Quote:

Men of color were also disproportionately represented among rates of new HIV diagnoses. In 2003, the highest rate of HIV/AIDS diagnosis was among African-American males (103.4 per 100,000 population), a rate almost seven times that of white men and nearly three times the rate among Latino men. Men who have sex with men (MSM) continued to account for the largest proportion of diagnoses-44 percent of all HIV diagnoses during the four-year period, and 61 percent of diagnoses among men.

And Finally the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
(click on AIDS cases by exposure)
Taken from a graph, dimensions don't evenly go across. First Number is Male, 2nd Female, then 3rd Total cases in America

Quote:

Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969 - 17,969
Injection Drug Use 6,353 3,096 9,449
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,877 - 1,877
Heterosexual contact 5,133 8,127 13,260
Other* 281 276 577

Male-to-male sexual contact 440,887 - 440,887
Injection Drug Use 175,988 70,558 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 62,418 - 62,418
Heterosexual contact 56,403 93,586 149,989
Other* 14,191 6,535 20,726

Again, the people who wrote the first article were insensitive and just moronic as far as putting their information out there and turning people off with the ridiculousness of the article, at that however there is still merit to the article.

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 12:45 PM

It seems to me to be fundamentally counter to the message of christ to spend millions of dollars proselytizing with the latest special effects instead of spending millions trying to help the world's poor and diseased. These people represent everything that is wrong with contemporary christianity.

Mojo, there is no merit to the idea that homosexuality caused the aids epidemic. The only thing that your statistics point to is a more prevalent use of safe sex in the hetero community than the gay community. That does in no way equal causation. I would like to see the source of your first article though.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-17-2005, 01:06 PM

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19649

And to reiterate, I was never implying or saying that AIDS or HIV was the bane of homosexuals. I was just pointing out the fact that if you remove the fire and brimstone rhetoric of fundamental conservative christians, the fact still remains homosexuals get the disease at higher rate and number then heterosexuals.

Mephisto2 · 01-17-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19649

And to reiterate, I was never implying or saying that AIDS or HIV was the bane of homosexuals. I was just pointing out the fact that if you remove the fire and brimstone rhetoric of fundamental conservative christians, the fact still remains homosexuals get the disease at higher rate and number then heterosexuals.

You know that's like saying that, statistically, Americans are more likely to die in a car accident than Inuit.

Guess what? That's right. But also guess what? It's statistically meaningless and of zero value when investigating the specifics of road deaths.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-17-2005, 01:42 PM

Is that the case? Or is it really an issue of the FACT that these numbers don't lie, and it stands in opposition to the false politically correct reality that many would have us believe?

Mephisto2 · 01-17-2005, 01:48 PM

Yes, that is the case.

FACT: AIDS is caused by the HIV virus that attacks the human immune system

FACT: Death from car accidents is caused by blunt trauma injury

FACT: More Americans drive cars, and are exposed to dangerous roads, than Inuit

NOT A FACT: Americans are the root cause of road accidents

NOT A FACT: Homosexuals are the root case of AIDS

There's a statistical link, but it means nothing. So why post it?

Mr Mephisto

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Is that the case? Or is it really an issue of the FACT that these numbers don't lie, and it stands in opposition to the false politically correct reality that many would have us believe?

Your numbers don't lie, but your interpretation of them leaves much to be desired. Association does not equal causality. That is a fact. The accuracy of your data isn't relevant because given that it is completely factual, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

I'm not arguing the accuracy of your stats, i'm claiming that they have zero relevance to any claim as to the righteousness or lack thereof of homosexuality in general, unless you want to make the claim that a person's lot in life is a direct reflection of their worth in god's eyes, i.e. Homosexuals are more prone to contracting the aids virus because they engage in behavior that is frowned upon by god. Is that what you're attempting to claim?

fckm · 01-17-2005, 02:28 PM

Reading through this thread, I can't help but feel that the American education system is sorely lacking. During the cold war and after the Russians put sputnik into space, there seemed to be a consensus and a social focus on the need to teach young Americans math and science. After 911, the issue of foreign students attending American graduate schools was brought to national attention. It seems that although foreign students pose a security risk, there aren't enough American graduate students with the knowledge and the interest to fill all the graduate positions.
It just seems odd to me that as a country that pays so much lip service to Math and Science, we're constantly churning out high school students who don't even know the difference between a Scientific Theory and a conjecture/hypothosis; that a country that was once so eager to wage a battle of technology and science with Russia, is populated by so many who can't tell the difference between Science and Religion; that a country which claims to be the most techonogically creative country on the planet, is home to people who think that vaccines cause autism. Watson, the American co-discoverer of DNA's double helix structure, shares the same citizenship as people who think the earth is only six thousand years old.
I guess its a tribute to our pluralistic society that a biologist engineering the solution to antibiotic-resistant bacteria shops in the same grocercy store as a school-board member who thinks that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Either that, or god's cosmic sense of humor makes him the best ironic dramatist since Shakespear.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-17-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Your numbers don't lie, but your interpretation of them leaves much to be desired. Association does not equal causality. That is a fact. The accuracy of your data isn't relevant because given that it is completely factual, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

I'm not arguing the accuracy of your stats, i'm claiming that they have zero relevance to any claim as to the righteousness or lack thereof of homosexuality in general, unless you want to make the claim that a person's lot in life is a direct reflection of their worth in god's eyes, i.e. Homosexuals are more prone to contracting the aids virus because they engage in behavior that is frowned upon by god. Is that what you're attempting to claim?

No, my initial post was merely to refute what Arch13 said in the 7th post, maybe I misinterpreted what he said. I was never claiming that AIDS is a result of sin or punishment from God.

filtherton · 01-17-2005, 02:46 PM

I didn't think you were, but you must understand that such a claim is part of most fundamentalist christian philosophies.

Fourtyrulz · 01-18-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Evolution is just a theory

Ahem...
|
|
\ /

01-16-2005, 10:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't get how establishing the fact that evolution is a theory equates to "Christian Fundamentalism". At any rate, last time I checked America is a free country, let these people put up a museum to there liking. Also I don't get how "fundamentalism" is rearing it's ugly head as a result of a museum for crazy folk being built, maybe a political force, but not as a corporeal political power. Also I'm with you, k-12 at private Catholic schools, I'm not as crazy as these folks in the article. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 01-16-2005 at 10:29 PM..

01-16-2005, 11:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	Ken Ham is a scarey guy, my parents listen to him all the time. I believe they even bought me a book by him once. shudder He's by far one of the most conservative fundamentalists out there, and hearing about him building this doesn't surprise me at all. __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan

01-17-2005, 09:55 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	"Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ!" -Joliet Jake "Sweet Baby Jesus on the Half Shell!" -my ex __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-17-2005, 11:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	bah, this kind of discussion drives me nuts. it all seems to say to people "ok, you're welcome to free speech... but just make sure that you hang your 'crazy sign' on the window so everyone knows. you're welcome to your free speech, of course you're welcome to it (we wouldn't think of abridging that)... only, can you please exercise it... over there. yeah, over there in the corner where none of the rest of us have to encounter it. yeah, wayyy over there. stay free buddy!" what good is free speech if it doesn't have the chance to effect society (and, in a democracy, the organs of government)? what good is it to donate, shout, plan and protest if you assent to people putting you into a "crazy box" where both sides give unspoken assent to not take you seriously? but irateplatypus... these people are against SCIENCE! science of all things... surely we must curb them if they're against science. that will ruin us all! can't you see they're crazy and must therefore be made unable to make real change in the world? even though we're constitutional republic, we're still going to rise and fall according to the masses. the framers of the constitution knew that they were going to rely on the electorate for the integrity and advance of the nation. throwing up roadblocks (be they legal or simple sneering superiority) in front of those you think are crazy is only an effective (though not moral) tactic as long as you still have enough backing behind you. the constitution doesn't provide for your theory of origins to be the default. the law, outside of explicit constitutional provisions, has proven pliable. the only way to combat what some feel entitled to name as crazy fundamentalists is to promote your idea in the public arenas... not to sneer and assume your idea should be there by default. my solution? i am a devout Christian and believe God is responsible for creation, but i do not dispute that creationism is a mature theory that has a lot of good science behind it. to me, it seems that Christianity should cede to science what is science (or caesar's?) and render unto God what is God. the church has a poor track record with science (flat earth, geocentricity etc...) and has thought that their very faith hung on a scientific belief. time shows us that synthesis is possible... that synthesis is necessary. we now have a faith that is more refined and focused over the dogmatic embarrassments of the middle ages. let's face it, those who promote evolution theories often do so in a way hostile to those of faith. equating those who have a different view of the way the universe started with mid-eastern fundamentalism is (sadly) tame compared to the things said on this board and in the public arena. the discussion is so often framed in a way that one must accept evolution at the expense of genuine faith. they whine and moan when religion impinges on scientific advance but rush let a bloated brand of science tread on religious ground where it has no domain. the Christian side needs to realize that their faith does not hinge on a scientific discovery. evolutionists who want people to look at their data honestly must not expect that people take evolution as a religion of its own. Christianity, science, and our nation will be edified only if all sides seek the naked truth. real truth-seekers must understand the advantages and limitations of their method. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 01-17-2005 at 11:20 AM..

01-17-2005, 11:44 AM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Lord Thunderin' Jesus (pronounced: Lard Tunderin Jaysus) __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-16-2005, 10:58 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Mr. Mephisto; I picked up quite a few good-old-fashioned Catholic oaths while I was visiting your countrymen a few years back. They used to say that a Druid's cursing could blister paint; I'm off to a good start!

01-16-2005, 11:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	My of my old favourites is Sweet suffering Jesus!!!. Mrs Mephisto still laughs at the time I screamed this when I jumped into a (very very) hot bath we ran at a hotel room during our first week together. I literally had burns on my body. Heh... good memories. Mr Mephisto

01-16-2005, 11:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Sweet Suffering Jesus! ( Sudden shock or pain ) Holy Sweet Mary Mother of God!! ( Old standby. ) Christ On The Cross! ( Good for "I can't believe you did that!" situations ) Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! ( To cover ALL the bases. ) Oh, Jesus Wept! ( Especially good for when you recieve bad news. ) Jesus Christ In Heaven! ( This one's good for extreme pain; you san still enunciate properly through clenched teeth. )

01-17-2005, 12:05 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well put Zeld. The "Modern Synthesis" is an excellent example of how the theroy evolution has... well, evolved. There are still many arguments as to particular aspects. Gould's support of punctuated equilibriumism is another good example. But creationism? Well, if you believe what's written, what is there to discuss? Mr Mephisto

01-17-2005, 11:29 AM	#16 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	Evolution is just a theory, While it is a theory that I believe in, Creationism is also just a theory, one I chose to not believe in. The problem is that some groups, while demanding that I respect their views, have no respect for mine. I do defend their right to believe, will they defend mine? That is the greatest threat in this country today. Not terror or AIDS, but the lack of basic respect for another persons point of view. This intolerance is what keeps us apart as a nation and leaves this country open for ridicule and attack.

01-17-2005, 11:47 AM	#19 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	You know, i've gotten really bored trying to argue with people who flagrantly ignore logic. I've just accepted that the majority of the people in this country have crazy beliefs.... hell, most people would probably think my opinions are crazy rooted predominantly in science or not. but god damned if that part about dinosaurs and people living in the same time period... where that guy answers the questioned inaccuracy with "Were YOU there?" Brilliant, and oh-so-Christian. I love the people who embody/create stereotypes and ruin it for everybody else who's just trying to figure out the lefts and rights of this crazy world.

01-17-2005, 11:50 AM	#20 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the argument is against those who think they're not infringing on people's free speech if they let them exercise it within the confines of their own community. the sort of people who don't mind what people say in their own homes... but wouldn't allow the free speech of others to have demonstratable results in the world around them. our society is set up for people to be able to effect change (within the confines of the consitution) wherever they see fit. the fact that some label them crazy fundamentalist doesn't preclude them from having the same legitimate means of effecting change that any other group has. to be honest, i don't think any of my post was in direct response to yours. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-17-2005, 12:04 PM	#21 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I'm continuously puzzled by people who insist that evolution is "just" a theory, but expect people to take literally a story about the world being created in seven days about 6,000 years ago. You cannot call them both "theories" and insist that they be given equal footing in scientific teaching when one has absolutely no valid empirical evidence! The mental acrobatics it requires to take the Bible "literally" astound me. I can only assume that Evangelicals and other fundamentalists are so incredibly frightened of the prospect of a world without Absolute Truth (according to their version of events, of course) sandwiched between leather covers that they are willing to throw common sense to the wind. Not only do they look like idiots but they degrade faith by trying to make it compete with science on its own terms. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive if you can open your mind just a crack to admit some ambiguity. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

01-17-2005, 12:45 PM	#23 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It seems to me to be fundamentally counter to the message of christ to spend millions of dollars proselytizing with the latest special effects instead of spending millions trying to help the world's poor and diseased. These people represent everything that is wrong with contemporary christianity. Mojo, there is no merit to the idea that homosexuality caused the aids epidemic. The only thing that your statistics point to is a more prevalent use of safe sex in the hetero community than the gay community. That does in no way equal causation. I would like to see the source of your first article though.

01-17-2005, 01:06 PM	#24 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19649 And to reiterate, I was never implying or saying that AIDS or HIV was the bane of homosexuals. I was just pointing out the fact that if you remove the fire and brimstone rhetoric of fundamental conservative christians, the fact still remains homosexuals get the disease at higher rate and number then heterosexuals. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-17-2005, 01:42 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Is that the case? Or is it really an issue of the FACT that these numbers don't lie, and it stands in opposition to the false politically correct reality that many would have us believe? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-17-2005, 01:48 PM	#27 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Yes, that is the case. FACT: AIDS is caused by the HIV virus that attacks the human immune system FACT: Death from car accidents is caused by blunt trauma injury FACT: More Americans drive cars, and are exposed to dangerous roads, than Inuit NOT A FACT: Americans are the root cause of road accidents NOT A FACT: Homosexuals are the root case of AIDS There's a statistical link, but it means nothing. So why post it? Mr Mephisto

01-17-2005, 02:28 PM	#29 (permalink)
fckm Insane Location: Ithaca, New York	Reading through this thread, I can't help but feel that the American education system is sorely lacking. During the cold war and after the Russians put sputnik into space, there seemed to be a consensus and a social focus on the need to teach young Americans math and science. After 911, the issue of foreign students attending American graduate schools was brought to national attention. It seems that although foreign students pose a security risk, there aren't enough American graduate students with the knowledge and the interest to fill all the graduate positions. It just seems odd to me that as a country that pays so much lip service to Math and Science, we're constantly churning out high school students who don't even know the difference between a Scientific Theory and a conjecture/hypothosis; that a country that was once so eager to wage a battle of technology and science with Russia, is populated by so many who can't tell the difference between Science and Religion; that a country which claims to be the most techonogically creative country on the planet, is home to people who think that vaccines cause autism. Watson, the American co-discoverer of DNA's double helix structure, shares the same citizenship as people who think the earth is only six thousand years old. I guess its a tribute to our pluralistic society that a biologist engineering the solution to antibiotic-resistant bacteria shops in the same grocercy store as a school-board member who thinks that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Either that, or god's cosmic sense of humor makes him the best ironic dramatist since Shakespear. __________________ And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be. Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

01-17-2005, 02:46 PM	#31 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I didn't think you were, but you must understand that such a claim is part of most fundamentalist christian philosophies.