Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Punishment is a requirement by law to read Atlas Shrugged

 

I am going to slow down and address one issue at a time. Your statement above is flawed.

For example at one time in history as late as the early 1800's the prevailing scientific view was that bloodletting cured some diseases. There were scientific theories about the blood, the bloodletting process, where and how to do it that were later proven to be totally wrong. The scientific theories involving bloodletting in that period was no more effective than some tribal religious rituals using narcotic plants - in fact some of those processes may have been more effective.

I can predict with certainty that what we know 200 years from now will make some current scientific theory appear as dumb as we view bloodletting today for many of the treatments it was intended for. In the mean time what we find is that many natural remedies involved in religious ritual from the past actually has beneficial medical uses.

Your view point seem to lack historical perspective.
--- merged: Feb 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM ---

I do not support the promotion of any specific religion in public schools. I have no issue with the ruling you cite.

 

I am obtuse? Think about what I am responding to. How would you teach the history of the Crusades without laying the religious foundation first? If public funds can not be used to teach religion, how do you do that among many other things?

How do you discuss the life and times and theories of Galileo without setting the religious foundation and the prevailing religious theories at the time?

We can not separate religion from education.

It is you folks who are obtuse!
--- merged: Feb 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM ---

I stated why. Scientific theory is often not fact. When we gain more knowledge , some theories are proven wrong. In the context of religious rituals involving some natural treatments as we have gained knowledge some of those have been proven to have validity?

Because there is a need to believe in a purpose greater than self. Again, the term "miracle" is used in different ways. You assign one meaning and most people assign a different meaning.

Was technique of bloodletting to cure disease a scientific theory?

 

Yes. You think the Bible is wrong. I don't interpret the Bible as literal. Many research and find reason to dispute biblical stories. There are even scientific theories for explaining the plagues brought on by Moses in the book of Exodus - the explanations are extremely compelling and actually lends some credibility to the tale in a scientific manner.

There are religions other than those based on the Bible or Torah. For example Buddhism teaches about Karma - every cause has an effect. Sounds familiar to me from a scientific point of view. The study of Buddha's Nobal Truths is very, pardon the pun, enlightening - no matter who you are.

If the limit of your understanding of religion is at the supernatural - we communicate on very different levels.

You use the term "miracle" without giving context. When the US Olympic Hockey team beat Russia in the 1980 Olympics was that a "miracle"? Millions of people call it a "miracle" but there sure as, pardon the pun, hell no divine intervention in a GD hockey game. I remember a few times when my grand-mother would get money to pay a bill coming due, and thank God saying it was a "miracle" - nope grandma, you got the social security check in the mail it comes every month.

Did Jesus walk on water - I doubt it - I think the story is a metaphor. So when you use the term "miracle" I have no idea what you mean. People want to believe in something greater than self. They want to believe their actions have impact, they understand outside forces having impact - but they want to believe their is a higher power that can on special occasion come in and let his/her/its presence be known. Not all religions have a basis in the belief in miracles in the tradition of some Judea-Christian faiths.

 

There is a very big difference between teaching history and teaching religion. If you can't see the difference, I don't know how to help you.

Besides, that is entirely not the point of this discussion. What is being discussed is evolution vs. creationism. Your red herring is just a diversion.

I have no issue with religions being taught as part of humanities (note the pluralization of religion) but religions have no place in a science class. There is no equivalence between superstitious beliefs of creationism and evolution. I am fine with you believing in your superstitions but as soon as it hits the Public School system, we have a problem. Save it for Sunday school or send your kids to a private religious school.

 

We can dispute the historical events in the Bible but the central tenant that there is a Supreme Being that created everything is, in my opinion, a fiction.

 

I honestly look forward to a day when the GOP can shed all of this garbage and be a party that can be taken seriously. I may not agree with most conservatives but there are many that I can respect. Sadly, they do not have a voice in today's GOP.

Fiscal conservatism as been infected with the Milton Friedman virus of neo-liberalism and social conservatism, the less said about that, the better.

The Big Elephant in the room is a sick beast. Get well soon!

 

If you read my posts you know I know the difference. I do not support the promotion of religion or religious theory in public schools. I do not support teaching religion at the expense of science. I do not support teaching religious theory or any theory as fact. early on I stated that teaching religion in public schools serves some valid purposes. Is this what you dispute? Or are you simply being a troll. or obtuse?

I believe evolution is valid and has been scientifically proven, and I believe in a God that created the universe. I simply do not believe humans are descendants from Apes - no science has proven that humans are direct descendents of apes.

What about social science???? How can you study social science and not study religion. You and others keep making these broad general statements that are flawed, and you get pissed at me for your problems in communicating.
--- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 11:59 AM ---

Are you implying that Buddhism is not a religion? I simply stated that there are many religions, some are more or less credible on certain issues than others - you seemed to be narrowly focused on Christianity.

Now you are suggesting that "creationist" don't change their views? In some versions of the Bible the story of Adam and Eve has changed to accommodate feminism. Some women got a little bent out of shape given the implication that Eve was subordinate to Adam. Again, you view lacks historical perspective.

That is a personal choice. That is why there are so many divisions in the Judea-Christian foundation. Even Islam has roots in this foundation. Various scriptures have writings that are in conflict. People try to resolve these in various manners. Totally new (relatively speaking) scriptures have been developed or branched off the old, i.e Mormonism.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you took a class or two at a local public college, oops, sorry you could not support that.

The tradition in Judaism is to constantly question. Talk to a Rabbi on this subject, you may be surprised.
--- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM ---

If it came down to me being a lone person advocating what I believe to be true and correct I will do it - I don't care about the superficial opinions of others. If the Republican Party becomes what you want it to be, they will be Democrats. Fortunately there are still a few who will stand with me.
--- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM ---

Here science traces the human race back to "Eve":

'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago

Is your issue with biblical stories or with biblical concepts? The concept of a first seems to be an interest of scientific pursuit. "Supreme Being" or an accident, your faith in a accident is no better or worse than another person's faith in a "Supreme Being" - or do you think you have the answer?

 

Any time, brah! Just let me know if you're passing through Chicago. My door is always open, and I am forbidden to actively proselytize (which I also think is crass).