US House Science Committee Member: Evolution Is a Lie From Hell

First time accepted submitter badford writes "Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) said that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell' meant to convince people that they do not need a savior. It would not be quite as shocking if Broun did not sit on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. What impact could this have on policy? What impact could this have on STEM education not just in Georgia but all over the U.S.?"

Comments

how do these people get into these positions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[nospam007]

"Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?"

We know that they never heard of genetics but more importantly, have they ever seen a dog?

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[Mitreya]

Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?

Yeah, there is a big, intelligently-designed random number generator

Actually even if he isn't elected, it is quite likely he is accurately representing the majority of the voters from his area/district.

Everyone in Congress is elected (and by a large number of people at that), and they still say a lot of unbelievable things (e.g., the whole "legitimate rape" thing, etc.).

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[bkmoore]

Both... To get elected in America, you either need lots of $$$ or the backing of one of the two major political parties, hence $$$. The primary system in most states ensures that only candidates who can successfully pander to about 0.5% of the population (die hard party loyalists) ever make it on to the ballot for the general election. So it is often the case that you either need to be exceedingly ignorant, or a very good liar in order to get nominated.

The voters suffer because we very often don't even get to vote for the most suitable candidates for office. That is also the reason that compromise in Washington D.C. is almost impossible. Failure to tow the party line means a primary challenge, and possibly not being able to get a nomination for the next election.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[Anonymous Coward]

This Representative is a MD. I'll assume that he has heard of genetics. It is possible that he knows more than we do on the subject. But it is probable that he is brainwashed by religion.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[fredgiblet]

The appointment to the different committees in Congress is done largely by politics. Some of the committees are more prestigious and powerful than others, congresscritters start with the lower committees and work their way up as they gain personal power and prestige in Congress

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[Black Parrot]

Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?

Elected, and saying whatever he thinks will get him re-elected.

Interesting article in the current Scientific American about how a lot of successful businessmen and politicians have a lot in common with psychopaths. Biggest difference is that they channel their aggressions into something other than eating your brain with a spoon.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[Stirling Newberry]

Specifically they tenderize it with campaign ads so they can slurp it out with a straw.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[jammer170]

Failure of compromise is a good thing. Do you really want this idiot Representative's opinions influencing bills?

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[Adayse]

Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?

Elected, and saying whatever he thinks will get him re-elected.

I agree but this probably wont help him get re-elected. You vote for Christians in the US because they have a known set of somewhat altruistic beliefs. You don't know what your other citizens believe and you sure don't trust them but surely you trust hell-fire spouting crazies and psychopaths even less? Here in Sweden we known what everyone else thinks so religion is not a merit.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[dkf]

Both... To get elected in America, you either need lots of $$$ or the backing of one of the two major political parties, hence $$$. The primary system in most states ensures that only candidates who can successfully pander to about 0.5% of the population (die hard party loyalists) ever make it on to the ballot for the general election. So it is often the case that you either need to be exceedingly ignorant, or a very good liar in order to get nominated.

Explain why a free association of individuals — a political party — should have to listen to anyone outside themselves to select a candidate from among their number to propose as a candidate for public office. I cannot see a reason for anyone other than party members to have a choice. The problem comes when a party feels able to put up a candidate that is not the best possible without the risk of some other group putting up a better candidate who will win instead. When you have that, you've got a one-party state in microcosm, and the loons and crooks take over. (Alas, sometimes you get a place where the nutjobs represent their constituents perfectly, but hey, that's democracy for you.)

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[mrchaotica]

Explain why a free association of individuals â" a political party â" should have to listen to anyone outside themselves to select a candidate from among their number to propose as a candidate for public office.

Because the election system is structured in such a way that only two major parties can exist; therefore those two parties need to reflect the opinions of a majority of citizens.

If the Democrats and Republicans consent to changing to some system other than first-past-the-post such that voters feel able to choose the candidate they want rather than choosing against the candidate they don't want, then I'll accept them only listening to themselves when choosing candidates.

Re:how do these people get into these positions?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?"
Does it matter anymore?

we need a litmus test

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

Re:we need a litmus test

[NoiseCounsellor]

Even better, let's just lobotomize anyone who disagrees with current academic knowledge, because clearly they are mentally unfit to be part of society. In case two people are disagreeable on a topic where currently there is no scientific consensus simply jail them until one of them can be lobotomized.

Re:we need a litmus test

[jfengel]

Despite loudmouth morons like this, there are plenty of religious people capable of managing their daily lives and even participating usefully in science. We happen to notice the deranged assholes like this one, and we hang our heads in shame that large chunks of the American populace agree with them. But not every religious American is an asshole, and you wouldn't fix the world by getting rid of an awful lot of nice, useful people.

I sure wouldn't mind it if this person evaporated. This kind of pernicious stupidity makes the world a worse place. But I'm not going to let it make me stupid with the fallacy of hasty generalization. (Heck, for all I know this person is a useful human being when he's not being a useless loudmouth fuck, but I'm willing to generalize at least that far.)

The US got where it is despite every President, Supreme Court Justice, and Congressman (well, nearly all) being religious, in some degree or another. Being religious doesn't have to make you a useless piece of shit. Even if it does in this guy's case.

Re:we need a litmus test

[paiute]

In case two people are disagreeable on a topic where currently there is no scientific consensus....

Name that topic.

Re:we need a litmus test

[jamesh]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

I know lots of athiests who are religious about their beliefs (or lack of beliefs, depending on how you want to slice it). In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups, which is kind of annoying as i'm an athiest anyway and object to being told what to believe (or not believe) by anyone.

I know plenty of Christians who are quite happy to take the creationist view put forward by the bible with a grain of salt (and some who consider it blasphemy to preach creationism when the universe around them was clearly not created that way).

Maybe just keep insane people out of public office? Or at least those where their insanity and delusion will prevent them from doing the job they were hired for.

Re:we need a litmus test

[tmosley]

String theory?

Re:we need a litmus test

[Hentes]

Yeah, just look how well it worked for North Korea!

Re:we need a litmus test

[flimflammer]

I disagree. I don't think any religious affiliation should bar someone from public office. However, I do think using said office to push agenda for said religious affiliation should be illegal. Lets keep any and all matters of church and state separate, please. If you want your kids learning about God in Heaven, have them attend a private school. There are many religions practiced in the United States. Attempting to push only one of them as the One True Answer and as such having it taught to all students is unacceptable and a good reason why things like evolution and the big bang theory should remain as a religion-independent theory. Theists must resist the urge to push their religion on other people, especially through the government.

I am Christian. I believe in God. I do not believe in taking my beliefs and forcing everyone to view them.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups

It's like a friend of mine once told me: "Atheists are very boring. All they talk about is God, God, God..."

Re:we need a litmus test

[NoiseCounsellor]

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Psychology, Politics, Economics to name a few - and most importantly which school/academy/university/nation should be the highest authority on any given subject.

Re:we need a litmus test

[BevanFindlay]

Ah, not sure where you get your logic from, but it is just as frightening that you got modded insightful as it is that morons like Broun get into public office. There are many who are both intellectually-strong and believe in God. By your logic, people like William Wilberforce or Newton shouldn't have had influence? So, you'd like a world with slavery and without physics?

Also, religion does not necesarily cause problems: Stalin (an atheist) was responsible for the deaths a good order of magnitude or so more of his own people than died in the Crusades and preceeding Muslim invasions combined.

Go read this: The God Fuse and learn that (a) every belief system can lead to being a dick, (b) there are a lot of sane, sensible people who believe different things to you.

Re:we need a litmus test

[BevanFindlay]

Also, there are more faith-based aid agencies than not (including some of the most effective), so you'd be making famine, disease and poverty worse, not better.

And I fed the troll. Sigh.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Jane Q. Public]

I agree with you 100% that there are plenty of faithful yet thoughtful and responsible people.

But at the same time: among people who are morons, there are few worse than fundamentalist fucking morons.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

It's like a friend of mine once told me: "Atheists are very boring. All they talk about is God, God, God..."

That's OK. You keep your head in the sand, and we'll keep trying to come up with a way to save our country from people like the legislator described in the article.

Making religion a subject of widespread mockery will be part of the solution, whether you like it or not.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Fuzi719]

Hell, even Einstein said he believed in a God who created the universe. His work in the unified theory was an attempt to understand that creator's mind.

Uh, no. In a March 24, 1954 letter, he [Einstein] is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." In another letter, Einstein wrote the word God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." I would wager that the vast majority of scientists hold the same opinion. They may have been raised in a religious environment, and might even maintain some traditions of those environs. But actually believe it? I don't think so.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Tom]

Despite loudmouth morons like this, there are plenty of religious people capable of managing their daily lives and even participating usefully in science.

And each and every one of them who doesn't stand up and put these extremist assholes in their place is guilty of collaboration.

What? America judges muslims the same way.

I would have a lot more respect for religion and religious people if you would stop allowing these fuckers to abuse your religion. As long as you do, I must assume that you don't think him all that bad. Not bad enough to get your asses up, at least.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Tom]

You have strange friends. Imaginary?

What the atheists I listen to are talking about most often is how other people try to control their life. In my country, for example, the churches are still receiving a few billion bucks every year in tax money. Not directly, of course, but through a vast network of indirect channels.
Then there's all these bullshit laws they want to force on us. Right now, there's a discussion in Europe about new blasphemy laws. Blasphemy laws! You'd think the middle ages are past.

In america, religious service is forced again and again on soldiers, school children and other people who are in power-inequality positions.

The list goes on. God only enters the picture as the bullshit reason these control freaks give for their actions, but we have long ago realized that it's the reason for the dumb. The reason for the smart has always been power.

You can have as many imaginary friends as you want. But I and others will continue "preaching" to you every time you or someone like you tries to control my actions or restrict my freedoms because of something that you think one of your imaginary friends wants.

Re:we need a litmus test

[paiute]

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Psychology, Politics, Economics to name a few - and most importantly which school/academy/university/nation should be the highest authority on any given subject.

Dark matter, dark energy - not enough data for a true disagreement to exist.
Psychology, Politics, Economics - not sciences.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Raenex]

In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups

That's funny, because I've never had an atheist approach me on the street or knock on my door to preach atheism, but I've been approached many times by religious people looking to convert me. I look at television and there are entire channels centered around religion, yet none around atheism. I don't see buildings dedicated to atheism, but find churches everywhere.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

Making religion a subject of widespread mockery will be part of the solution, whether you like it or not.

Nope, because that alienates non-crazy religious individuals, who end up despising both the crazy ones as well as rationalists. Americans have this bad habit of thinking the world is like their country, when in fact if you search around the globe you'll find USA is, nowadays at least, the place from where the craziest religions and religion-branches come from. Mormonism, channeling, UFO cults, Scientology, Creationism, New Age fluff -- all of them genuine made-in-USA.

Do this: search around. You won't find a single country other than the USA where creationists have either the political power or the infiltration within Christian branches as they do over there. And there where these idiotic things seem to be gaining a foothold, such as that case with the South Korean textbooks, you'll find behind their proponents the backing of some US-based fringe group, never a native development.

This, incidentally, is why the also US-born form of aggressive atheistic rhetorics I read falls flat anywhere else where it attempts to establish itself. The effect doesn't resonate because the attack target simply isn't there.

Thus, the more you generalize, the less effective you become. Remember the adage: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Either you apply it, or they will. Go around punching who has nothing to do with the issue and, instead of hurting your real target, you'll end up hurting yourself and your own cause.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

God only enters the picture as the bullshit reason these control freaks give for their actions, but we have long ago realized that it's the reason for the dumb. The reason for the smart has always been power.

The do the smart thing: attack the actual problem, those guy thirst for power, not the literary devices they use for rhetorical purposes while trying to get there.

The problem with atheists in general and new atheists in particular is that they don't study war doctrine, otherwise they'd know that winning is most of times a matter of a) not causing otherwise neutral parties to ally with your enemy because you made yourself seem more dangerous than them; or, better yet, b) causing those neutral parties to ally with you.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

Nope, because that alienates non-crazy religious individuals, who end up despising both the crazy ones as well as rationalists.

If that were true, we'd all be Scientologists or Moonies. I believe (but can't immediately prove) that the main reason why people remain superstitious in an age of scientific enlightenment is because of superstition's longstanding social value. As a result, I also believe that making fun of people's superstitions is a very good way to drive those superstitions underground and lessen their influence on secular society. Laughter is certainly a better offensive weapon than violence, right?

Americans have this bad habit of thinking the world is like their country,

As an American citizen and voter, I'm not the least bit concerned with countries other than the US. I'm not responsible for the government in those countries. They can do what they want. However, that being said....

Do this: search around. You won't find a single country other than the USA where creationists have either the political power or the infiltration within Christian branches as they do over there

OK, I "searched around." The evidence I've found suggests that the influence of religion on secular education is not a concern limited to either the USA or Christianity. Did you have a point you'd like to make with respect to these findings? Do you believe that it's healthy for civilization to see these beliefs growing in influence over the course of the 21st century, rather than diminishing as any sane person would have expected?

If you don't believe that, then chances are, we agree more than we disagree.

Re:we need a litmus test

[jamesh]

You know, I keep seeing things like this written/said by people who always claim not to have an axe to grind, but in my 50 years on this planet I've never come across that behavior. Not once.

It makes me wonder, you know? What's more likely: that this is going on all over the place yet I've completely missed it for the last five decades, or that perhaps there is an agenda there, and people are saying what they wish was true rather than what is? Yeah, I think we all know the answer to that one.

If you were my friend on facebook you'd see it. I have friends who are athiests and friends who are christians, and not one of the christians has ever raised the subject while the athiests are always on about how religion causes this and religion is bad and people who are religious are stupid. And not just in response to a comment someone else made, but completely unprovoked. They seem to care more about "converting" you than the christians do.

You'll find a few christians who want to force their beliefs down your throat, but on the whole they are quite happy to worship privately, and more power to them as long as they don't bring it to work.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

The problem with atheists in general and new atheists in particular is that they don't study war doctrine, otherwise they'd know that winning is most of times a matter of a) not causing otherwise neutral parties to ally with your enemy because you made yourself seem more dangerous than them; or, better yet, b) causing those neutral parties to ally with you.

There is only a miniscule number of genuine "neutral parties" in this debate. Most people were successfully "imprinted" with their local religion from earliest childhood. A few weren't.

Within the latter population, very few indeed are sitting on the fence, trying to decide whether to accept reality or indulge in fairy tales. There aren't enough of these pathologically open-minded folks to matter, IMO.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

Laughter is certainly a better offensive weapon than violence, right?

If only your minority group laughs while the huge majority around just looks at you confused wondering what you're talking about, I'd say it's at best ineffective.

OK, I "searched around." The evidence I've found suggests that the influence of religion on secular education is not a concern limited to either the USA or Christianity.

Those things fit within what I pointed: US cultural influence abroad. Creationism vs. Evolutionism is pretty much like Hollywood movies, spreading from the same cultural powerhouse with the same intensity.

Did you have a point you'd like to make with respect to these findings? Do you believe that it's healthy for civilization to see these beliefs growing in influence over the course of the 21st century, rather than diminishing as any sane person would have expected?

Oh, I'd say I'm indifferent. As a non-US person observing from far away, I find it all fascinating, but it really doesn't bothers me either way. It doesn't matter what you teach in school, most people will glance over biology teaching, memory whatever is required of them to pass exams, promptly forget it all the next day, and move on. As for the very few remaining ones that happen to develop an interest in the subject up to the point of entering college, they learn better anyway, be it better evolutionism, as no matter what you do it'll be badly taught in schools, or simply evolutionism at all. So, what's really the problem? Be this or be that, the end result is the same.

The sane approach then, for me, is quite simple: whoever is paying decides what their money will be used for. If in a region the paying people want teachers teaching a subject, so be it.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

Those things fit within what I pointed: US cultural influence abroad

OK, well, we're done here, it looks like.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

There is only a miniscule number of genuine "neutral parties" in this debate. Most people were successfully "imprinted" with their local religion from earliest childhood.

I'm talking about these. Most religions don't give a damn about evolution or creation (well, except in the USA, where for some odd reason it matters). Then, if you attack them for something they don't care about, guess what? They'll start caring about it. And not in a way favorable for whomever appeared out of nowhere attacking them for, from their perspective, no reason at all.

Re:we need a litmus test

[NoiseCounsellor]

Dark matter, dark energy - not enough data for a true disagreement to exist.

Isn't the 'not enough data' argument exactly what's driving people to oppose science with religion and vise-versa?

More importantly, how much data do you need to have a true disagreement? And why would that data not automatically end the disagreement because the data could be assumed to be fact?

I guess since we do not have sufficient data any agnostic is simply wrong. Also, biology cannot be a science. Gregor Mendel is considered the founder of genetics as a 'science' and he was a friar. That must mean anything he contributed to the so called 'science' of biology must be wrong and this whole 'evolution' meme was just a plot by the catholic church to root out heretics.

I might just about agree on psychology not being a science, though. I mean, there's a whole religion devoted to that, right?

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

Only an idiot or a religious fundamentalist thinks religious fundamentalism is harmless.

All fundamentalism is dangerous. That said, they rarely endure more than two generations. They get tired with age, and their bored descendants change things around.

As for nukes, lots of governments presumably in the hands of fundamentalists (but not really -- those who actually govern don't get in that position by being idiots) have nuclear weapons. And yet, the only country ever to actually use not one, but two of them, was (also presumably) not in the hands of any fundamentalist, but rather fighting two fundamentalists.

RealityTM: killing oversimplifications since 14.5 bi BC.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Eikinkloster]

"Do you believe that it's healthy for civilization to see these beliefs growing in influence over the course of the 21st century, rather than diminishing as any sane person would have expected?" So you see things contradicting your expectations and you still think your expectations were sane? That spells out insanity for me.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

Truly, you have a dizzying command of mental health diagnostics.

Re:we need a litmus test

[loshwomp]

In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups

Where do you live? It's pretty lonely being an atheist most places I've been.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

Communist personality cults are religious in nature.

Same mental bug, different exploit.

Re:we need a litmus test

[nsheppar]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

The Soviet Union under Stalin provides a counter-example to this assertion. Also, where does your concept of evil come from?

Full disclosure: I am a born-again Christian. I don't think that means some of the things some people think that means.

Re:we need a litmus test

[tbird81]

The problem with atheists in general and new atheists in particular is that they don't study war doctrine

I'm not at war with anyone. I just think belief in a god/gods is a bit stupid. And evolution seems to be the logical conclusion if you have anything that can reproduce and change. Plus we have all this telescope, geological, nuclear information that indicates the world is not 6000 years old.

I used to be a Christian. I stopped at thought about it when I met other Christians who believed that crap - and came to the only rational conclusion when thinking about gods - there aren't any.

Re:we need a litmus test

[arth1]

You'll find a few christians who want to force their beliefs down your throat, but on the whole they are quite happy to worship privatel

Until you want to be allowed to do things that their religious leaders are against, like stem cell research, available contraception, public nudity, rights for atheists to hold office (in a couple of states, they're still barred by law), abortion, right to take an oath of allegiance without mentioning god (without belonging to an organization that will testify that it's against your belief), right to cuss, right to marry whoever you want, have sex for any reason (including money), or whatever else is an abomination unto Nuggan this week.

If you first rip out all the legislation that favours your religion, then come tell me to shut up. Cause right now, your silence is because you have it the way you want it. If you don't speak up for evening the playing field, you're supporting the oppressive status quo, very loudly.

Re:we need a litmus test

[riverat1]

Oh, it also only happened once... ever... At least only once on this plannet. How so? Because if it had happened more than once, there would be two completely different lines of DNA code.

It could have easily happened more than once and the line we are part of simply out-competed the other lines early in the process. I have trouble with the idea that 300 million atoms is some minimum number to get the process started. Seems to me the number is quite a bit smaller than that and you probably should be talking molecules anyway.

Re:we need a litmus test

[jamesh]

You'll find a few christians who want to force their beliefs down your throat, but on the whole they are quite happy to worship privatel

Until you want to be allowed to do things that their religious leaders are against, like stem cell research, available contraception, public nudity, rights for atheists to hold office (in a couple of states, they're still barred by law), abortion, right to take an oath of allegiance without mentioning god (without belonging to an organization that will testify that it's against your belief), right to cuss, right to marry whoever you want, have sex for any reason (including money), or whatever else is an abomination unto Nuggan this week.

If you first rip out all the legislation that favours your religion, then come tell me to shut up. Cause right now, your silence is because you have it the way you want it. If you don't speak up for evening the playing field, you're supporting the oppressive status quo, very loudly.

I'm an athiest, so I don't believe in any deity. If ripped out all the legislation that favoured that then we'd be in a peculiar situation. If you tell me that I can't do something because your god says I can't, then you and I will have a problem. If you go to chuch on Sundays, say grace before a meal, say a prayer before bedtime, and whatever else your god demands of you, but you don't try to force any particular belief on me or anyone else, then you can believe what ever you want and I won't ever criticise you for it.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Forty Two Tenfold]

non-crazy religious individuals

No such thing. It's just a matter of degree. I don't see how believing in an imaginary friend that can get us something if we ask for it on our knees is not crazy or dangerous. Enabling this type of lunacy is by-proxy enabling the fanatics.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Yes, because atheism is the reason for totalitarianism. You know that in NK the godhead is named Kim? He's their religion. So no, there's no actual state atheism in NK.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I am Christian. I believe in God. I do not believe in taking my beliefs and forcing everyone to view them.

Whoops. They you don't understand your religion!

Re:we need a litmus test

[toriver]

Your "God of the Bible" is a fucking youngster compared to Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva. So why aren't you a Hindu instead? "I do not believe in those gods", you perhaps say. So why is it so hard to accept that others do not share your particular fantasies?

Re:we need a litmus test

[dbIII]

It's not all made in the USA.
I'm an Australian, and live just 3/4 hour drive from some whackos that formed a very financially lucrative cult at a place with mildly radioactive spring water next to an explosives factory. Apparently it's a holy site of some kind. They exported their weirdness to the USA and made a bit of extra cash there before it imploded, leaving the founders doing time and their followers bankrupt.
Then there's the Moonies, the Bag-one-rash-knees and various others plying their trade from elsewhere but still getting money from the marks in the USA.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Hentes]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs

Not sure what your definition of totalitarianism is but this pretty much fits mine.
And if you call blind belief if communism a religion, then blind belief in that all the suffering in the world is caused by faith is also one.

Re:we need a litmus test

[dave420]

Not in the case of this asshole - all the data is there, but he won't believe it "because Jesus". That *is* dangerous thinking. Seriously dangerous thinking. This guy in question is delusional, and should be treated as such.

Re:we need a litmus test

[dave420]

Maybe they don't appreciate having religion forced down their necks in every facet of their life. One doesn't like the status quo, the other does. Guess which is vocal? Oh no, that's too easy - I guess it must be that atheists are somehow all assholes or some other irrational guess.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Forty Two Tenfold]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs

Not sure what your definition of totalitarianism is but this pretty much fits mine.

Prohibiting the insane from holding responsible position is totalitarianism? That "guardian" thing may be a hyperbole, but I do not feel secure knowing that people over twelve who believe in fairies and other magical beings are taking care of vital affairs and foreign relations.

blind belief if communism a religion

Well, for one, belief in that what is in North Korea is Communism is delusional.

blind belief in that all the suffering in the world is caused by faith is also one

A belief that atheism is a belief that "all the suffering in the world is caused by faith" is also delusional.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Tom]

The do the smart thing: attack the actual problem, those guy thirst for power, not the literary devices they use for rhetorical purposes while trying to get there.

No, you missed the point there:

Attacking the religious foundations is absolutely the right thing to do. The people at the top don't give a flying fuck about anything. I am 99% sure that you could convince the pope in private the his god is a fairy tale and it wouldn't change a thing.

Now you can convince the base of people who support these fuckers (and in the case of the catholic church, I mean that literally) that the people at the top are corrupt, power-greedy assholes. So what? Even if you succeed, they will remove them, and replace them with a new generation of corrupt, power-greedy assholes, or - even worse - idealists who quickly turn into evil, psychopathic inquisitors.
Why am I so sure? Because it's happened before.

But remove the religious foundation and not only will the current generation of fuckers come crashing down, but there will be no place for the next one, either.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The US got where it is despite every [...] (well, nearly all) being religious, in some degree or another.

Because (up until recently) they were making a point of keeping religion separate from state affairs.

Re:we need a litmus test

[craigminah]

Being religious or not shouldn't be held for you or against you in politics or anywhere else in life. It's another part of what makes people different and provides guidance to people through morals, parables, and examples of what to do as well as what not to do. Religion shouldn't be so polarizing but we have those like this politician who's an obvious wanker and on the flip-side we have others who immediately reject someone because they are religious.

I am Christian but I am not blinded by religion, it guides me and provides a foundation for my life along with what my parents taught me, what school and college taught me, and what I learned through living. It's not a threat to anyone but rather something I find comforting and helpful in my life.

Re:we need a litmus test

[dudpixel]

I don't think that is fair.

You are essentially equating being religious with denying evolution, which is a false dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to be religious (even christian) and believe in evolution, big bang theory etc. The key is to understand that the bible is a collection of ancient texts that contain views that reflect the "scientific" understanding of their day. Yeah the bible claims to be "inspired" by God, but no one really knows what that means exactly. It certainly doesn't mean every word is divine (and we don't have "every word" anyway). Nowhere in the bible will you find a claim that God wrote all of it. Nowhere in the bible will you find a claim that God wrote any of it (directly). This might sound odd if you were taught that the bible is somehow God's divine personal message to humans. The bible is a human book - it contains words said to have been spoken by God, but it was still written down by humans. Some parts even claim that God told the author what to write, but they are just short passages, and not entire books. If we project our modern worldview onto an ancient text, we're going to end up in all kinds of confusion. So with this in mind, it shouldn't be all that surprising when we find views in the bible that contradict what we know today from science. The authors back then didn't have that knowledge, and if Genesis 1 was written in a way that was scientifically accurate, people living 3500 years ago wouldn't have understood it. Its goal wasn't to teach scientific truth, it was to teach theological truth. Expecting scientific truth is asking for something the bible never claimed to give. Compare Genesis 1 with the views held in the time it was written, and you'll see that it was a polemic, not a history document.

I believe the bible is written by humans to tell us about what they experienced and what they know about God (who they claim appeared and spoke to them), and that if we are to believe the claims of these people then we can come to know God through their testimony. I also believe that that is how God wants to be known.

Don't expect to find God through science. It is impossible. God is outside the realm of science. If I had to make a wild guess, then I'd say in terms of science God is just 'energy'. But I don't think science ever set out to answer that question. The existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It is beyond the realm of science. Don't get me wrong, science is extremely beneficial, but it has limits. It cannot give us the meaning of life, for example, because meaning comes only from philosophy. Science is about mechanics, philosophy is about meaning.

We also have 4 largely independent witnesses to the life of Jesus (the synoptic gospels do share material, but also all contain unique material and unique details as well), and the discrepancies in their witness only serves to strengthen the fact that different people remember events differently (and sometimes in a different order). There must still have been real events behind the memories to account for the existence of the memories.
Something dramatic happened in the lives of the apostles to account for their dramatic change in confidence and mission. Something very unique happened in order to account for the explosion in christianity even before the writings of Paul (which surfaced only 20 years after Jesus' death). People are free to believe that it is all made up, but I am also free to believe that any explanation for these dramatic events must have been something extraordinary, and the usual theories (stolen body, apostles agreed to tell lies, etc) fail to convince me.

I know my views above disagree with the fundamentalists, but if you're only referring to fundamentalists then I agree with what you said. I believe there is much truth to be found in the bible despite its incorrect portrayal of what we know as "science". It isn't a science textbook, and doesn't claim to be. But that doesn't mean it can't give us theology. Anyway, that isn't the topic here.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Anonymous Coward]

The US got where it is despite every President, Supreme Court Justice, and Congressman (well, nearly all) being religious, in some degree or another. Being religious doesn't have to make you a useless piece of shit. Even if it does in this guy's case.

No, you are wrong. They all pretended to be religious because they are smart and knew that was the only way to power.

I live in Georgia. When people ask me about religion, I explain that I am a man of deep faith. That is true, but I do not believe there is some all-knowing, imaginary entity guiding everything, everywhere. That's for physics.

My faith is a little more grounded. When I'm driving a vehicle on the roads and highways, I have tremendous faith in other humans that they won't cross into my lane or cross over that double yellow line and kill me, my wife, my kids. THAT is faith. Sometimes other humans fail me. About 2 months ago, a woman tried to cross 5 lanes of traffic to make a left onto a freeway entrance. The fact that my vehicle was in the way didn't matter to her. I avoided being hit, but spun out 3.5 times. During the spin and stopping, I didn't hit anything else. No other cars, not that crazy bitch and not the side of the road. It was really amazing. It was a beautiful, sunning day around 3pm. Thanks to physics and the people who designed both the vehicle and tires, I was saved from harm. The woman stopped after I pulled over to the side of the road. My car was facing oncoming traffic at this point. We both got out. She started appologizing for her actions. I grabbed her and gave her a huge bear-hug. She was an Asian womain ... perhaps 40 yrs old. I'm a big white man a little older. She wanted to exchange information, since there might be damage, but nothing was harmed. I gave her another bear hug, and left. There were 50 witnesses - all sitting in two left turn lanes who saw the entire thing. It never crossed my mind to hit her even though she just tried to kill me. No pains ever happened, thanks to physics and good engineering.

My wife and I agree. We teach our kids the same things. "God" or "god" are for weak people with weak minds, but we don't want to upset them, so we play along. All your friends are weak. Their parents are weak. Almost everyone else is weak minded because they believe in imaginary forces that do not exist. Look at Xmas, Halloween, Easter ... the entire world claims to believe. 10% are like us and just play along.

Why do we play along?
* Jobs; If daddy told his boss that he didn't believe, he would be passed over for raises and promotions.
* Family; parts of our family are weak, like grandma and most of your aunts and uncles.
* Avoid Harrassment from religious groups for our lack of beliefs.

Basically, religious people are bigots and perform extreme discrimination, so we must act like there is some god.

It is the most important secret our kids have. Never tell anyone. It isn't safe. Mommy and Daddy have a few friends that believe like we do, but most do not.

All religions are stupid wastes of effort. The only good reason to have a religion is for the tax free aspects. Look throughout history and there are thousands of examples of religions doing terrible things to people and the world. Terrible things.

Re:we need a litmus test

[squiggleslash]

Making religion a subject of widespread mockery will be part of the solution, whether you like it or not.

Part of what solution? To make atheists as unpopular as possible?

This is a country where the vast majority of people consider themselves religious. They're happy, for the most part, to accept that the beliefs they were brought up with may need some modification as our scientific understanding of the world advances, but not if it's worded as "Haha! You're a moron! You believe everything in the Bible [no, most Christians don't - ed.] including both the stuff I can show is false and the stuff I can't that's no harm to anyone!"

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

I used to be a Christian. I stopped at thought about it when I met other Christians who believed that crap - and came to the only rational conclusion when thinking about gods - there aren't any.

That's a bit silly. There are idiots in all fields of life. Just because you happened to be exposed to idiot Christians (hence idiot Christianity), or, for that matter, idiot Muslims/Islam, Jews/Judaism, Buddhists/Buddhism etc., it doesn't imply that either of those things themselves are idiotic, only that they have idiotic elements within them. That can be generalized to Theism as a whole: while there are clearly silly concepts of gods, there are some very clever ones that avoid all the typical attacks made against the former, and whose defenders/followers actually join the Atheist in attacking the former. The problem I see then is that Atheists and silly-theists both look at the question as if it had only two camps, when actually it has at least three.

An excellent example of the 3rd camp, which names itself "classical theism" (as opposed to the modern or non-classical variety which Atheists usually battle against) is Edward Feser's blog. It is a good starting point for one to see that in this, as in everything else, the world isn't structured in black and white, and not even in mere shades of gray, as the more sophisticated two-camp actors would like to think, but actually has many colors, and shades between all of them.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow you heart, especially when it contradicts any religious teachings.

The problem is that my heart tells me it's better to beat you senseless and take your bread than to let my family go hungry.

Re:we need a litmus test

[gottabeme]

Let me translate: "If you disagree with me, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should be put under house arrest, so you won't be able to influence anyone else against my views."

Now for some truth: Communism, rooted deep in athiesm, resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century--but to those communists, nothing was lost, since without God, humans are nothing but bags of random organic goo, resources to be exploited, since they amount to nothing in the end. On the other hand, it's because of the intrinsic value of human life that is central to Christianity that resulted in the formation of the USA and all its associated values of individual liberty, which have had a strong positive impact on the rest of the world--which you would so grossly trample.

You're nothing but a hypocrite. But of course, "+5 Insightful" on Slashdot.

Some of the greatest intellectual leaders of all time had strong religious faith. It's only in the cult of scientism--in which science itself is practically worshipped as a religion--that religion and reason are said to be incompatible.

Re:we need a litmus test

[drinkypoo]

Then there's the Moonies, the Bag-one-rash-knees and various others plying their trade from elsewhere but still getting money from the marks in the USA.

Apparently here in Lake county, CA we have some society where the head guy lives on a diet including a whole bunch of jism. And this is the rumor running around the local hippie community, not the mundanes. It is truly a varied world. I think we actually have some three or four established cults with property and a driveway and a sign around here.

Re:we need a litmus test

[drinkypoo]

If you go to chuch on Sundays, say grace before a meal, say a prayer before bedtime, and whatever else your god demands of you, but you don't try to force any particular belief on me or anyone else, then you can believe what ever you want and I won't ever criticise you for it.

They do try to force particular beliefs on others. They do it by voting along the lines of their religious beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not really be beliefs, but it's whatever they've been told in church, or by their parents, who learned it in church. If the man in the fanciest or most drab clothes (depending on the style of their faith) standing at the highest point in the room or the lowest (...) tells them something, they are obliged to repeat it.

I don't believe or pretend to believe that all religious people are so without conscience that they let an ostensibly holy man guide them to immoral actions, but as long as we have laws which outlaw certain activites, and people vote for congresscritters based on their religious beliefs, we're going to have laws which conflict with the first amendment.

Re:we need a litmus test

[microbox]

Science is not about being certain -- it is the opposite.

Re:we need a litmus test

[scotts13]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office.

Bosh. Let them believe what they want. However, let them ONCE state (or otherwise demonstrate) they'll allow their religious beliefs to color their political decisions, and they're gone.

Re:we need a litmus test

[BonThomme]

" there are plenty of faithful yet thoughtful and responsible people."

They have a problem with speaking up, though.

Re:we need a litmus test

[BonThomme]

"agnostic Christian"

that's an oddly specific agnosticism

Re:we need a litmus test

[BonThomme]

"vast majority of people consider themselves religious"

on the basis of a poll question, not behavior.

the vast majority also consider themselves smart and excellent drivers.

Re:we need a litmus test

[magamiako1]

Atheism is not ignorant. There are no 'two sides' to the coin. The Republican mentioned in this article is a fucking nutjob. Period. You either agree with this statement or you don't. It's VERY black and white here. He's a detriment to the further progress of our society and our country. You either vote for people like him or you don't. The instant you go "well, he's not THAT bad.." or "STUPID ATHEISTS ARE ALWAYS POINTING OUT THE CRAZIES!" is the instant I take from the statement that you agree with the guy enough to let him and those like him to have power. And from that, you are then on their side. And I then treat you like I treat them.

You want my respect? I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or whatever; you vote people like them out of office. You keep people like them out of office. You make sure people like them will never have a voice outside of their cults and churches.

You show me that viewpoint, then we will agree.

Re:we need a litmus test

[BeadyEl]

He's free to serve in Congress, but it's pretty clear that he doesn't belong on a science committee.

Re:we need a litmus test

[TheSpoom]

Could we please have a discussion on here that doesn't turn into atheist loudmouths v. everyone who isn't them?

Re:we need a litmus test

[Guy Harris]

OK, I "searched around." The evidence I've found suggests that the influence of religion on secular education is not a concern limited to either the USA or Christianity.

Those things fit within what I pointed: US cultural influence abroad.

The US is at fault for Muslim creationism? Crazy people from the US may be supporting Christian creationism in other countries, but do, say, the crazy Turkish Muslim creationists spring from US support?

Re:we need a litmus test

[Dracophile]

A peculiar typo, "athiest".

Re:we need a litmus test

[JakeBurn]

Jeffrey Dahmer: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing" [An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994]. I think old Jeffrey might disagree with you.

Re:we need a litmus test

[alexgieg]

The US is at fault for Muslim creationism? Crazy people from the US may be supporting Christian creationism in other countries, but do, say, the crazy Turkish Muslim creationists spring from US support?

As a political movement? Yep, it does. The methods, modus operandi and arguments are all drawn from American and, to a lesser extent, European (in turn American-influenced) authors.

By the way: Muslim fundamentalism was born in the 18th century inspired by British puritanism. That original movement weakened in England, but went on to live in US Christianity. So, both fundamentalisms are basically children of the same father.

Re:we need a litmus test

[samion.blanc]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

if you're living in the US, and I would guess that you are, consider at least that your country supports a separation between church and state. In some other countries it is a requirement for x position of leadership to be of x faith and other political positions that have to be held by x religion. it could be worse...

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

This is a country where the vast majority of people consider themselves religious.

Yes, and as the article illustrates, we need to change that.

We can do that by laughing at them, or by killing them.

Which do you prefer? I prefer the former.

Re:we need a litmus test

[LifesABeach]

I'm thinking that the honorable Representative Paul Broun should start selecting which suit he is going to wear when he's invited to Stockholm to collect his prize.

I can hardly wait to hear about the validity of "Spontainous Generation and Dark Matter" from our learn'ed Representative.

Re:we need a litmus test

[LifesABeach]

I think that both the Protestent, and Islamic Taliban should switch to Decaf.

It's like listening to banjo with 3 broken strings.

Re:we need a litmus test

[salparadyse]

In case two people are disagreeable on a topic where currently there is no scientific consensus.... Name that topic.

Man made global warming. Bullied, frightened professionals do not constitute "a consensus".

Re:we need a litmus test

[hairyfish]

Basically, religious people are bigots and perform extreme discrimination, so we must act like there is some god.

I have a problem with tis pretending as it only serves to re-inforce the lies and help sway others who may be unceratin about their beleifs to get onbaord the fantasy wagon. This behaviour only seems to occur in the US (and third world countries), in most other western countries I've been to, there seems to be no problem accepting Atheism (Here in Australia our Prime Minister is publicly athiest)

Re:we need a litmus test

[Stiletto]

So basically, you're a coward and a hypocrite. And you're teaching your kids to be that way, too.

Re:we need a litmus test

[bsercombe72]

The main problem is that the fundamentalist fucking morons often seem to be the ones most attracted to having power over others. Therefore their influence (and capacity for damage) is unfortunately far greater than it should normally be.

Kudos to the OP (jfengel) of this subthread who is a gentleman/woman for whom one day I would like to buy a beverage.

Re:we need a litmus test

[tehcyder]

Interestingly, you could be describing life under the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia, just with a few tweaks because it's a Christian theocracy rather than an Islamist one.

With all the prattling about how free America is, I know that I'd rather live in the UK where you don't have to pretend to be religious ever.

Re:we need a litmus test

[tehcyder]

If fundamentalist Christians or Muslims want to learn science in the UK, they get taught about evolution. If they don't like it, they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. I suppose learning a bit of comparative religion is all right, but that belongs in Religious Education classes, not Biology.

Re:we need a litmus test

[cwarrior]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

/. was founded by two Christian college students, right?

Re:we need a litmus test

[Thugthrasher]

This is a country where the vast majority of people consider themselves religious.

Yes, and as the article illustrates, we need to change that.

The article illustrates no such thing. The article illustrates that we have an idiot on the house committee on science, space, and technology. We need to stop THAT. I couldn't care less if someone in that position is religious, as long as they aren't idiots that ignore science (the two aren't mutually exclusive...it's only the fundamentalist Christians and the atheists that don't think things through that believe that).

Re:we need a litmus test

[Thugthrasher]

Why am I so sure? Because it's happened before.

But remove the religious foundation and not only will the current generation of fuckers come crashing down, but there will be no place for the next one, either.

The trouble with this idea is that if you remove the religious foundation then the current generation of fuckers will come crashing down, sure, but the next generation will FIND a place. It doesn't have to be religion. It can be anything. The masses are stupid and the corrupt, power-hungry assholes will always find a way to take advantage of them. You assume that getting rid of religion will get rid of the corruption. All it will do is make those who want the power go a different route to get there. The classic example is Stalin.

Re:we need a litmus test

[dywolf]

idiot

Re:we need a litmus test

[daem0n1x]

Creationism is laughed at here in Europe. Most people never even heard about that stupid shit.

The very conservative Roman Catholic Church officially supports the theory of evolution. Creationism is mostly an issue among some American fundamentalist Protestants and in a few Muslim countries where fundamentalists have a strong influence.

Re:we need a litmus test

[squiggleslash]

Here's an idea, why not go on to read the next sentence? It actually explains what I'd rather do, which amazingly enough neither involves laughing, or killing them.

Another point to make: if you do either of your "solutions", you're more likely to end up dead than the fundies. They outnumber you, and enough of them are violent for it to be a problem.

Re:we need a litmus test

[squiggleslash]

No, we can pretty much assume the vast majority of people who consider themselves religious - that is, believing a particular religion answers the questions to life, the universe, and everything, is close to 100%.

You're, perhaps, confusing being religious, and following the life rules of the religion they follow. Failing to be a good Christian does not have any bearing on whether you're religious. And, I might add because it comes up all the time, it doesn't even have any bearing on whether you're a "real" Christian - if you don't believe me, ask an actual priest. Have an abortion and a Catholic priest may say you've disobeyed God, but they won't tell you you're somehow no longer a Christian.

Re:we need a litmus test

[toocoded]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office. Further, you should have a guardian assigned to look after your affairs, since obviously you are very weak intellectually.

Probably bring about end of war, famine, disease, poverty, and all evil in the world, if we could just keep the religious from having influence.

This is a bold, harsh, ignorant statement. Why do you flame someone for their belief? If America is a free nation, why should religious people not serve in public office, should they just stand back and twiddle their thumbs?

My point is.. All sorts of secular agendas are presented, passed and accepted - unfortunately by some Christians... Paul Broun has a worldview (a Christian worldview) and as a "Free" American, he has a right to express himself.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Tom]

I don't claim that this would end poverty and starvation and all the other world problems.

But eliminating one of them makes it easier to tackle the others. Sure, when you lift a carpet and the cockroaches all run and hide under the next one, you've not really eliminated the cockroaches - but you are one carpet closer to doing so.

Re:we need a litmus test

[nilbog]

Confirmation Bias.

Re:we need a litmus test

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

I am genuinely curious to know what you mean by "stand up and put these extremist assholes in their place". As in violently remove them from office? Graffiti the sides of buildings? Stand in the middle of intersections and yell about Rep Broun? Seriously, what do you suggest?
Do you really think someone who self-identifies as the same religion as Rep Broun could just call up CNN and say "I want to put that extremist asshole in his place" and CNN would show up at his house with a camera and give him the opportunity to say "Not all of us who call ourselves $religion_name agree with that one guy who does $crazy_shit and calls himself $religion_name!"
I'm honestly curious what you think someone should do to as a matter of "get your asses up" in that regard.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

It actually explains what I'd rather do, which amazingly enough neither involves laughing, or killing them.

You would rather ignore the problem and wait for it to diminish on its own, as more and more religious people "accept that the beliefs they were brought up with may need some modification as our scientific understanding of the world advances." Right?

Question: Just how many more Congressional positions do you think we can afford to lose to these sorts of people? Because their numbers are increasing.

There needs to be a severe social penalty for anyone who admits to voting for people like Rep. Broun. Any solution you propose that does not make this happen is one that I'll reject out of hand. The time for passivity is over. It doesn't work.

Re:we need a litmus test

[im_thatoneguy]

I come from a religious background (private school K-12 etc). They aren't just "bad apples" they're the leaders of almost every church in the country. They're the pastors, deacons, principles, teachers and counselors. They're the presidents, they're the bishops they're the people with real power within the organization.

When you think of a denomination or religion in the US the organization as it's defined by its leadership is probably just like this congressman.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

The article illustrates no such thing. The article illustrates that we have an idiot on the house committee on science, space, and technology

Gee, I wonder how a thing like that could have happened?

it's only the fundamentalist Christians and the atheists that don't think things through that believe that

<rolleyes> Yeah. Teach the controversy. </rolleyes>

Re:we need a litmus test

[Jane Q. Public]

Mod this man President.

Re:we need a litmus test

[Man On Pink Corner]

If it wasn't religion, it would be something else.

Yes. It would be something else. Something that's not magically immune to criticism, perhaps.

Re:we need a litmus test

[cyberchondriac]

The key words here are "personal God". No, he didn't believe in a God that worried himself over the daily comings and goings of the human race, or one that listened to prayers; however, he did believe in some sort of metaphysical creator, and resented it when atheists misrepresented or misunderstood his position.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/04/einstein_and_the_mind_of_god.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Einstein_believe_in_God

Re:we need a litmus test

[mfnickster]

If you are religious, you should be prohibited from serving in public office.

Really? You want to amend the Constitution just to keep out some bad apples? What about the majority of reasonable, competent, intelligent people who are also religious, they get no say in self-government?

Not to mention the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. I am not religious and I certainly wouldn't mind if everyone else gave up religion too, but you have to have the freedom to decide for yourself or you have no freedom at all. What if you change your mind while in office?

As Thomas Paine said, "I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

Re:we need a litmus test

[seantide]

Wow, what an ignoramus you are. I'd almost be willing to agree if by religions you also included zealous atheists and other religions, but I bet you don't (yes, atheists, despite the name, preach, evangelize, and are zealous often far above and beyond any of those awful religious people, so let's ban them too).

A good number of these religious people you say are obviously very weak intellectually created the world's technology, including the technology allowing you to spout your ignorance here. Really, you'd appoint a guardian to people like that? The ones that made everything you depend on?

Re:we need a litmus test

[VoidCrow]

> good reason why things like evolution and the big bang theory should remain

hmmm...

I, rather naively, thought that the reason for these theories was grounded in the science rather than in political expediency.

Re:we need a litmus test

[flimflammer]

That wasn't really the implication I was making, either.

electrion year

[girlintraining]

It's an election year. Don't believe anything they say. Republicans this year especially have been saying the craziest crap because they know crazy people are more likely to vote than sane ones, who long ago gave up and decided the world was run by crazy people. Oh, did you just see what I did there? :( This guy has a long list of failures politically and personally (4 marriages)... I suspect he'd wear a pink tutu and sing songs from Little Mermaid if he thought he'd get more votes.

Re:electrion year

[ColdWetDog]

It's an election year. ... I suspect he'd wear a pink tutu and sing songs from Little Mermaid if he thought he'd get more votes.

OK, I'm game. I'll pitch in $50 for his re election campaign if he'll do that. Even just the tutu.

Re:electrion year

[noobermin]

Are you saying this is okay? I'm not challenging you, but I'm not sure I get the reason for your comment.

Re:electrion year

[Beorytis]

Simple pandering, since this took place "at a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church".

Re:electrion year

[alienzed]

There's no way he'd ever wear a tutu and sing songs... that'd mean a house committee member would actually get something done. The shear concept is as ludicrous as someone who doesn't understand the concept of evolution and sits on a committee involving science.

Re:electrion year

[Kohath]

Electrions are particles that always travel in the direction of the majority. That direction might change, but only in an electrion year.

Re:electrion year

[Pecisk]

This fairy stale could be true some 8 or 4 years ago. Since Tea Party took dying Republican Party over like a parasite, *this* is what actually they believe.

So yeah, be worried, because he is not catering to crazy voters. No, because he really wants to represent the crazy ones as "true believer".

Re:electrion year

[bmo]

>It's an election year. Don't believe anything they say

He's running unopposed.

It's what he really thinks. He's not pandering.

--
BMO

Re:electrion year

[utkonos]

"The tea party likes crazy more than they hate black. And I'm crazier than a shit-house rat." - Mike Tyson as Herman Cain

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4ecfd3a85f/herman-cains-campaign-promises-with-mike-tyson

Re:electrion year

[jamesh]

It's an election year. ... I suspect he'd wear a pink tutu and sing songs from Little Mermaid if he thought he'd get more votes.

OK, I'm game. I'll pitch in $50 for his re election campaign if he'll do that. Even just the tutu.

Where's that going to lead to though? Some sort of America's got talent / American Idol event preceding the election?

Re:electrion year

[DJRumpy]

Except for the fact that he's running unopposed? In his case it doesn't matter that it's an election year.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/06/arkansas-republican-slavery-was-blessing-in-disguise-that-rewarded-blacks-with-u-s-citizenship/

Re:electrion year

[Guppy06]

It's an election year. Don't believe anything they say.

He's a House member. House members have districts drawn to be non-competitive. As far as he's concerned, the only election he had to worry about was his primary back in March.

Re:electrion year

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I suspect he'd wear a pink tutu and sing songs from Little Mermaid if he thought he'd get more votes.

No, no, that's what he wears when he's playing J. Edgar Hoover with his boyfriend.

Re:electrion year

[tmosley]

A grassroots organization is a parasite?

What?

Also, the Tea Party movement got taken over by the big boys in the party. This guy came in in 2007, well before the Tea Party. He just jumped on their coattails to gain political capital, while not ascribing to any of their philosophies, which had nothing to do with religion.

Re:electrion year

[Anonymous Coward]

More people vote for contestants on crappy "Reality" TV than actual elections, so, yeah, why not!

Re:electrion year

[chill]

Except he is running unopposed. He really doesn't have to say jack shit and he'll get re-elected.

Re:electrion year

[joocemann]

Please don't act like so many people and start drawing all kinds of loose/false inferences from a claim/argument.

She said what she said. What she said was an explanation that is plausible, and that is all she said. Absolutely *NOTHING* about that explanation suggests that her opinion is that it is ok. And maybe she does think that, but, again, absolutely nothing about that claim suggests anything about what you've decided to ask about.

In communication you should focus your attention more on the facts and arguments of those communicating, and less on what you want to know from that communication. In this, you can remain in a more clear discussion with less unnecessary explanation.

Slashdot, and the rest of the interwebz, is famous for responses that are full of assumptions and unnecessary questions. Please help reduce this. Stay on point.

Re:electrion year

[BevanFindlay]

Mod parent up.

Re:electrion year

[Chaos Incarnate]

We'd probably get politicians who better cared for what their constituents wanted that way.

Re:electrion year

[khallow]

Who really believes that pandering to the extremely niche "science is a tool of the Devil" crowd is going to get a politician votes? If one looks at the cases where school boards were stacked with intelligent design advocates, for example, the takeover was covert and they got voted out when the next election happened.

Re:electrion year

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The 60-70% of Americans who are not right-wing nutballs have been making the critical mistake, for quite some time now, of believing that the 30-40% who are right-wing nutballs don't mean what they say, because nobody's really that crazy, right? I mean, maybe a few people, but not tens of millions of them, right? Right?

Except that yes, they are. And while they may be a minority in absolute terms, there are enough of them to constitute a majority of the Republican Party--which means that roughly half of the American political establishment is under the absolute control of these loons. Non-crazy Republicans, of whom there are still quite a few, have wilfully blinded themselves to this situation, and continue to vote to give the nutballs power. The only way to stop this is for the rest of America, the slim majority (hopefully) which is not in the thrall of either ideology or party loyalty, to recognize what's going on, unify against the nutballs and all who associate with them, and send them back to the fringes where they belong.

Re:electrion year

[Stirling Newberry]

Democracy is the hope that the coalition of the sane out numbers the coalition of the insane, and will not allow their right to vote be taken from them.

Re:electrion year

[khallow]

Maybe the "BMO" is in your sig? I don't see "BMO" showing up anywhere else, smartypants. :-)

Re:electrion year

[Fned]

Where's that going to lead to though?

Vice-President Honey Boo-Boo in 2040, that's fucking where.

Re:electrion year

[jamstar7]

It's an election year. ... I suspect he'd wear a pink tutu and sing songs from Little Mermaid if he thought he'd get more votes.

OK, I'm game. I'll pitch in $50 for his re election campaign if he'll do that. Even just the tutu.

Where's that going to lead to though? Some sort of America's got talent / American Idol event preceding the election?

have you looked at the election process since they developed television??? Just about everybody from the late 50's on ahs been 'all hat and no cattle', to steal a phrase from my misspent redneck youth. The 'leaders' just gotta look and sound good. The real power is in the handlers.

Re:electrion year

[pod]

You got the "Tea Party" think backwards. They got co-opted by Republicans, much like the Green Party was absorbed by Democrats and no one takes Ralph Nader seriously anymore.

Re:electrion year

[Seumas]

Worse, it's what close to half of America thinks, too.

Re:electrion year

[Svartalf]

Prove it.

Re:electrion year

[girlintraining]

It's what he really thinks. He's not pandering.

Who said he's only concerned about this election?

Re:electrion year

[bmo]

The people who subscribe to the Genesis story always hovers around 45-48 percent of Americans.

It's been that way since the Scopes trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

--
BMO

Re:electrion year

[arnoldo.j.nunez]

I left my computer unattended and someone else posted this. This is not my style of writing comments. Check my comment history. This is not my style of writing comments. Regardless, I apologize to joocemann and girlintraining.

Re:electrion year

[riverat1]

{Shudder}

Re:electrion year

[riverat1]

The TEA Party owns a significant part of the base of the Republicans but big business and Wall Street own the upper levels and they're willing to pander to the base to get their votes.

Re:electrion year

[Grayhand]

This is about power and control. They aren't trying to control their behavior or beliefs of people like them they want to control the rest of us. It's out of fear. Their beliefs can't survive the acid test of "what if I'm wrong" so they don't want anyone posing the question in the first place. It's why the church suppressed science for so long. People that believe this is about religious freedom are living in a fools paradise. The fanatically religious don't want religious freedom they want everyone to be forced to follow THEIR beliefs. Right wing conservatives are far more dangerous than any terrorist group. They are over here and they have power and worst of all they are very organized. They control through fear. Anyone that tells you to be afraid of everyone and everything that isn't like them or their beliefs is dangerous and a threat to our way of life!

Re:electrion year

[cheekyjohnson]

Slashdot, and the rest of the interwebz

It's not just the Internet...

Re:electrion year

[GameboyRMH]

LMFAO!! XD

Ow my sides...

Re:electrion year

[currently_awake]

I like this idea! If you have a talent show, at lest the rich don't get undue influence over the process.

Re:electrion year

[noobermin]

Hence why I asked. You're not girlintraining though... You're insinuated that I was challenging her...which I said I wasn't.

Re:electrion year

[mjwalshe]

yes Tea party is classic entryisiam - the trots tried to do this to the labor party in teh 70's/80's

Re:electrion year

[tehcyder]

A grassroots organization is a parasite?

I just had to chop down a tree that had been killed by ivy. And the ivy didn't start from the topmost branches and work down.

Re:electrion year

[tmosley]

Implying there is proliferation at the top of an organization.

Pyramids, not trees.

Funny how in the other thread, you are advocating police states and authoritarianism. You are a beetle person. Read 1984 to know what I am talking about.

Re:electrion year

[cyberchondriac]

there are enough of them to constitute a majority of the Republican Party--which means that roughly half of the American political establishment is under the absolute control of these loons. Non-crazy Republicans, of whom there are still quite a few, have wilfully blinded themselves to this situation, and continue to vote to give the nutballs power.

Oh please, this is not representative of the majority of the republican party, it's just that loons get all the attention. It makes for great headlines.
There are far more "young earth" loons than I would like there to be, granted, but they're not the majority.

Why...

[srussia]

is there even a House Committee on Science, Space and Technology?

Re:Why...

[girlintraining]

is there even a House Committee on Science, Space and Technology?

So there can be an oversight committee, of course.

Re:Why...

[germansausage]

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded". - My irony detector doesn't seem to be working today. I can't tell if this comment is making fun of the religious interpretation of the big bang, or is a straw man deliberately misrepresenting what the big bang is.

"In the beginning, everything was in one place. Then it expanded in all directions. And, it's still expanding today"

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

To propose budgets for NASA, the NSF, and the NIH.

To discuss the legality of embryonic stem cell research.

To act as the body that drafts virtually all laws related to science regulation and/or spending.

Are those reasons not good enough for you?

Re:Why...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

In the beginning was everything. The circumference was constant. The inside started shrinking away from the periphery and it's still shrinking today.

Cheers!

Re:Why...

[ehiris]

According to wikipedia it was created because of the fear that Soviet science was ahead of American science.

Since the enemy of the US now is highly religious with low scientific potential, our bar has been dropped to very low levels. The whole scientific purpose of space exploration has now been largely reduced to commercial viability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Science,_Space_and_Technology#History

Re:Why...

[M. Baranczak]

Since the enemy of the US now is highly religious with low scientific potential

Are we talking about Al Qaeda? Or Georgia Republicans? Because I know it ain't China.

Re:Why...

[ericloewe]

From their textbooks, soviet science was far ahead of what these idiots consider "science".

Re:Why...

[ASimpleIdea]

I wish there real scientists like us on that committe. http://secretsecret500.blog.com/2012/10/06/hello-world/

Re:Why...

[Meeni]

Since science is evil, maybe a bit of history could be of some use. Have you ever heard of the Ottoman empire?

Once upon a time, Al Quaeda grand-grand-grand parents used to rule the world. They had a majestic empire which dominated a large portion of the world. They were advanced in technology, science, military, economic power. Their armies would trump occidental armies, western kingdom would envy and learn from their science achievements, mathematics, philosophy, ...

Then, they started acting irrational(1).

Then the empire crumbled, it was called "the sick man of Europe", was torn appart, occupied, vassaled, ridiculed, and stripped from its resources. All by the once secondary powers of the western world, who had patiently learned from it, and superseded its achievements when it stalled. Its people became miserable, and it is still today a challenged place to live, where, ironically, many have to resort to extreme bigotry as a form of comfort against the fool taste of being disdained by more powerful nations.

1: Some exerpts from Wikipedia, but many books will tell you the same story.

"Ottoman science and technology had been highly regarded in medieval times, as a result of Ottoman scholars' synthesis of classical learning with Islamic philosophy and mathematics, and knowledge of such Chinese advances in technology as gunpowder and the magnetic compass. By this period, though, the influences had become regressive and conservative. In 1734, when an artillery school was established with French teachers in order to impart Western-style artillery methods, [b]the Islamic clergy successfully objected under the grounds of theodicy.[67][/b] Not until 1754 was the artillery school reopened on a semi-secret basis.[67] Earlier, the guilds of writers had [b]denounced the printing press as "the Devil's Invention"[/b], and were responsible for a 53-year lag between its invention by Johannes Gutenberg in Europe in c. 1440 and its introduction to the Ottoman society [...] the printing press was used only by the non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire until the 18th century. "

Beware. This is not without consequences.

Re:Why...

[meglon]

Are we talking about Al Qaeda? Or Georgia Republicans?

There's a difference (other than the beards)?

Re:Why...

[tmosley]

Seems more likely that the "Big Bang" was actually the formation of an event horizon as seen from the inside. The universe is probably fractal in nature. That is the only system that I know of that can explain time that doesn't have a beginning or end, yet can appear to have a start time.

Re:Why...

[Black Parrot]

is there even a House Committee on Science, Space and Technology?

Are you suggesting that those are things a country shouldn't have a policy on?

Re:Why...

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" is a Terry Pratchett quote. So it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, and may have even represented the opinion= of a character ; I can't remember.

Re:Why...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh, but that was Muslims, you see. Everyone knows they're ignorant and backward by nature. Completely different from our situation. No comparison at all.

Re:Why...

[devent]

denounced the printing press as "the Devil's Invention"

Then the MPAA and the RIAA is in good company, only about the Internet (oh and the video tape before that, and the CD before that, and the DVD before that).

Re:Why...

[Stirling Newberry]

Don't worry you've been voting to have it given to the rich, so soon the government won't be able to do anything to stop them.

Americans wanted a corrupt plutocracy, they voted for it, and now they are going to get it.

Re:Why...

[Stirling Newberry]

Al Qaeda reads their holy text in the original language.

Re:Why...

[sjames]

Of course there is, stamping out all that evil requires coordination!

Re:Why...

[sjames]

It's a mash-up of Genesis and a somewhat antiquated (or simplified) version of the Big Bang theory (pre-inflation).

Re:Why...

[evil_aaronm]

Eastern hemisphere, not "the world." The western hemisphere had all sorts of stuff going on to match, if not exceed the Ottoman Empire. Check out the book 1491 by Charles Mann.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that muslims are quite alot different from most other religions even religions such as mine that reject believes that are in conflict with creationism (as I believe it in any case) such as evolution other science so called.

...no, they really aren't. The only difference between most modern versions of Muslims and most modern versions of Christians is that most modern Christians live in cultures that incorporate Enlightenment values which reduce the influence of religion on science and the state, and most Muslims live in cultures that had their moderate/secular voices stamped out by Western anti-Communist operations during the Cold War. The actual religions are not so different at all.

Fact is that science doesn't discredit other possible beliefs religions do.

...no, science definitely discredits beliefs that aren't based in fact. Religions might discredit beliefs that are in conflict with themselves, but science discredits beliefs that are either contradicted or not supported by evidence.

Practical science that makes the world go round works just as well with creationism behind it as it does evolution its quite frankly irrelevant to the progress of scientific study.

...no, it really doesn't. The entire field of biology is based on the principles of evolution - you might as well attempt to use physics while leaving out the principles of gravity.

Re:Why...

[readin]

Well we haven't really had much choice in the matter. The Republicans promise a small government that the corporations would have little incentive to take over, but when they get in power they break their promise.

The Democrats promise a big government that corporations will need to take over if they want to survive, and unlike the Republicans the Democrats keep their promise.

So should we vote for the vote for the parties that says it will do good but lies, or vote for the party that promises evil and follows through?

Re:Why...

[tnk1]

The Soviets had their own problems. Yeah, they had no issue with religious dogma, of course, but that didn't keep them from interfering with science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

One fun quote:

"In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience";[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued."

I guess they were more advanced than we are in one way: they didn't even need religion to interfere with science, they just did it in the name of Socialism.

Re:Why...

[Stirling Newberry]

Corporations are part of capitalism, and have been integral to it for 150 years.

Re:Why...

[bidule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_called_a_%22polymath%22

From 702 to 1406 the vast majority (30/40) of polymaths were of muslim culture. After that, 60/70 were of european culture. Note that we still have to hold supremacy for another 100 years or so to last as long as they did. Maybe we'll get Heinlein's theocracy before that.

Re:Why...

[Meeni]

Perfectly correct, and to some extent, Turkey is a progressive force and a secular country. The fact is that when the empire failed apart, Young Turkey movement and progressive force took power (see Ataturk legacy) in Turkey, and probably saved the remainder of the empire from being further dismantled (original plans where to split up turkey between Greece and Russia, leaving only a phantom state in the middle of Anatolia for Turkish people).

The outer parts of the empire, mostly Arabic (rather than Turk) where not so lucky. They got invaded, occupied and colonized by western powers. Secular forces there where crushed for the sake of immediate consideration of the occupying force (because often, secular political movement would also be nationalist, a very bad thing for an occupying colonial power, meanwhile theocratic leaders would be satisfied as long as they can excerpt local power, not caring much for the massive resource stripping going on the economic side).

When occupation powers finally left, the political spectrum was barren, leaving behind dysfunctional "divine right" monarchies strongly bonded with theocratic power. Any attempt at a progressive approach would meet strong reactionary forces (either facist, such as the Baas party, or theocratic like Komenei's Iranian revolution), leading to a continuation of the stalemate.

Re:Why...

[arth1]

This is so full of bullshit that I don't even know whether I'm feeding a troll or an especially ignorant specimen of the (presumably) human race.

The âoeBig Bangâ also implies a beginning, but it does not explain who or what caused that event to take place. The Big Bang theory violates cause and effect.

This is bullshit. There is no law that every effect must have a cause, just that if there is a cause, it cannot come after the effect. Particles appear out of nothing all the time without a cause, which even Christians can verify.

Also, you can say the same about a creator - what was the cause of it?

Time itself is a created quantity that did not always exist. Time is a mystery and the theory of evolution requires lots of time.

More utter crap. Time is not a mystery. It's a fourth dimension warped by mass and velocity. Riemann, Einstein, Minkowski and Lorentz have taken the mystery out of time - about a hundred years ago now.
Evolution doesn't "require" lots of time. Fruit flies evolve quite rapidly in laboratories. The more generations and changes favouring adaptation, the more evolution you get. Time itself just happens to pass while these things occur.

Religion, on the other hand, seems to require time. Eternity, to be precise.

(In my case, an eternity of torment and torture. But he loves me.)

We can measure time more accurately than any other quantity we know how to measure, yet there is not one human being on earth who knows exactly what time is.

Wrong, and wrong. (Do I sense a theme here?)
What's your basis for saying we can measure time more accurately than anything else? How do nanoseconds compare to nanometers, exactly, to bring you to this conclusion? You're spouting nonsense.
And there are plenty of people who know what time is. Pretty much anyone with a non-US high school science education, I would think, plus all those who know it because they have an interest in learning.

But how do you measure religiosity? And how many knows exactly what it is?

Why is it that the arrow of time moves in one direction only? Why are half of us not getting older and half of us getting younger half the time? Nobody knows.

Not this tripe again. First of all, the arrow of time is not absolute. It's only absolute with respect to bringing information across time. Lots of laws work in both directions.
Secondly, the same appears to hold true for space. Space increases, it never decreases.
And, apparently, human gullibility doesn't seem reversible either.

But most off all, we don't have to know. We observe, and make theories based on observations. If a theory is strong enough, it can even become an axiom. And if anything is shown to contradict it, we seek to replace the theory.

Wouldst the same was true for religion. Why god? Why not a teapot?

Re:Why...

[meglon]

Al Qaeda reads their holy text in the original language.

You had me at: "Al Qaeda reads...."

Re:Why...

[toriver]

Dogmatic belief in the words of Marx and Engels, combined with a cult of personality around Josef Stalin, that does for a modern religion make.

Re:Why...

[quenda]

Have you ever heard of the Ottoman empire?

Once upon a time, Al Quaeda grand-grand-grand parents used to rule the world.

No, the Ottomans were Turks, and they ruled the Arab Al-Quaeda ancestors, while adopting their religion. A bit like the Romans and Greeks.
Fortunately the Turks were rescued from religious decadence by Atatürk. The Arabs, and maybe even the US, could use somebody like him.

Re:Why...

[quenda]

Al Qaeda reads their holy text in the original language.

So do the Republicans. If Olde English was good enough for Jesus, verily it is goode enough for them.

Re:Why...

[noobermin]

Old English (with thou's and thy's) isn't the Holy Text's original language?

Re:Why...

[Guy Harris]

Old English (with thou's and thy's) isn't the Holy Text's original language?

Minor nit: more like Early Modern English than Old English or even Middle English.

Re:Why...

[gtall]

Don't understand much about science do you. Back to the Dark Ages with ye!

Re:Why...

[findoutmoretoday]

... in Europe in c. 1440 and its introduction to the Ottoman society ...

The Ottoman empire starts with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the empire was the bigot.

Re:Why...

[mjwalshe]

Al Quaedas take on Islam is not related to the Ottoman empires.

Re:Why...

[sysrammer]

In the beginning was everything. The circumference was constant. The inside started shrinking away from the periphery and it's still shrinking today.

Cheers!

That's a relatively interesting post.

Re:Why...

[Chowderbags]

The earlier event which really decimated higher learning in the Middle East: The Sack of Baghdad by the Ilkhanate. Essentially the center of learning in the Muslim world was utterly destroyed. Libraries were burned down, books were tossed into the river, scientists and philosophers were massacred, and a canal and irrigation system that was built up over a period of thousands of years was completely dismantled. If you wanted to parallel it to an event in Europe, the closest analogue might be the sack of Rome (though even that isn't really comparable, as Rome had already fallen far from it's heights).

Re:Why...

[Stirling Newberry]

Al Qaeda recruits strongly among the more educated members of the society upset with their lack of opportunities in their culture.

Re:Why...

[readin]

Corporations are part of capitalism, and have been integral to it for 150 years.

Yes, but a cozy relationship between government and corporations is not integral and it should not be part of it. However when government obtains for itself the power to micromanage corporations - deciding which ones get funding, which ones are heavily regulated, which ones get waivers from those regulations, etc., gaining control over the government is a necessary and natural part of the corporations self-defence mechanism.

Re:Why...

[Stirling Newberry]

Yes life was so much better when 7 year olds worked in factories and people could own people, when bridges collapsed from poor construction, and there were wide spread pandemics because of lack of public health. People just didn't know how good the had it when the powders they bought from druggists could contain rat poison, and mine owners could just shoot workers. Ah, the good old days of unregulated plutocracy.

Re:Why...

[tehcyder]

Al Qaeda reads their holy text in the original language.

Duh, I think you'll find that the King James Bible was written in Jacobean English.

Re:Why...

[gsiarny]

Though this is way off topic, this bizarre abridgement of Ottoman history shouldn't be modded up to 5 without some sort of clarification.

It's unclear how the Ottomans were in any sense "Al Quaeda['s] grand-grand-grand parents". The two groups are in completely categories. The Ottomans were a collection of Muslim Sunni and Sufi Turkic groups who happened to move into Anatolia, not a loose international band of Muslim fundamentalists sprung from postcolonial Arab Sunni roots. The Ottoman Empire wasn't a predecessor of Al Qaida any more than the Holy Roman Empire was the predecessor of American Christian fundamentalists - which is to say that "group A came before group B, sorta near where group B would be later on, and maybe they both had the same general religion, sorta" does not mean that "group A were the antecedents of group B".

The Ottoman Empire was large, but they never ruled even the whole Islamic world, let alone the whole world. There were two or three other contemporary Islamic powers of comparable size and wealth, not to mention the various European and South Asian powers. Ottoman power didn't wane because they "started acting irrational", whatever that might mean. The explosion of Atlantic trade routes, in which the Ottomans participated little, had a clearer effect, comparatively enriching its Western European neighbors. As for bigoted, Turkey, the much-truncated successor state to the Ottoman Empire, is one of the more tolerant and secular of Muslim countries. Lastly, there is no contemporary Ottoman Empire and hasn't been since the end of World War I. It isn't a place where people live, bigoted or no.

Re:Why...

[tmosley]

I'm not giving a lecture or writing a paper for a peer reviewed journal, and that is the definition of fractal, so it is safe to assume that when I say "fractal" that I mean "fractal".

You just jelly.

Re:Why...

[tmosley]

Ok, so what was before the Big Bang? Don't tell me that I don't understand X. Explain to me what GR theory predicts at t=-1min. I don't think that you, or anyone, can do that.

A system that produces unlimited resolution with nodes between portions of the system blocking observation seems rather elegant, and leaves us with potentially testable predictions (as production of tiny black holes should be possible). The applications from such a discovery would be rather interesting as well, I would think. Other "universes" with similar, but alien physics, for example.

Just now I did a quick Google search to see if anyone else has thought of this, and of course, someone had (I may have heard of it some time ago and just thought of it again, forgetting the source--this happens with puny human brains). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation_theory

You don't need fractals to explain what we see--you need fractals to explain what we DON'T see (the hypothesized rest of the universe), and WHY we don't see it (event horizon analogue is in the way). Tell me what GR says about what happened before the Big Bang (if it even makes such predictions), and maybe something will be learned.

This IS Slashdot...

[dpilot]

It's on the internet. The fundamental enabling technology for the internet is the semiconductor. The semiconductor is a child of quantum mechanics - there is no classical behavior that would predict it. Even though quantum mechanics are present in all chemistry and even vacuum tubes, those both have classical behavior that can be seen with the naked eye, and appreciated without quantum mechanics.

Semiconductors can't. They're "Devil Science", just like those others.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[girlintraining]

Semiconductors can't. They're "Devil Science", just like those others.

I know Intel's processors can get hot, but I don't consider them to be the gateway to hell and damnation. And can you see electrons in vacuum tubes? No. Can you see molecules interacting with each other in the lab? Nope. You see the result of those things. Just because the senator doesn't agree with it, or understand it, doesn't mean it's the work of He Who Must Not Be Named. I don't understand plasma physics; That does not mean I deny the existance of plasma... especially not after putting General Tso's chicken in the microwave without taking it out of the to-go container. Though I may have screamed "Jesus H Christ!" a few times while my dinner experienced an previously unseen physical effect, followed by its flaming remains being deposited into the sink along with a pair of my mother's prized oven mitts.

Flaming General Tso aside, my point is there are perfectly reasonable explanations for every conclusion reached in science. That is, afterall, the very goal and simultaniously the definition of, a scientific fact: Objective, reproducible, proof. Evidence. But, it's pretty clear evidence doesn't stick well to members of Congress... Even those who chair the oversight committee for science.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[ericloewe]

Obligatory xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/808/

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[meglon]

I know Intel's processors can get hot, but I don't consider them to be the gateway to hell and damnation.

Are you sure? What if an Intel processor is the gateway to using Windows Vista?

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[girlintraining]

Are you sure? What if an Intel processor is the gateway to using Windows Vista?

Then we should put it on the list of Schedule I drugs and arrest anyone found in possession of it, and imprison anyone caught distributing it. Sure, some people who use Vista go on to lead productive lives, but for too many... especially children who don't know any better... why, I just can't even bring myself to talk about some of the things prolonged Vista use can cause.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[Hentes]

So what does quantum mechanics have to do with evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory?

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[Stirling Newberry]

Congress is reproducible, we have elections every 2 years and they keep getting more unpopular.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[dpilot]

It's newfangled "new science", not like the good old dependable science of Sir Isaac Newton. I don't know about embryology, but evolution and quantum mechanics both really started in the mid 1800s. (William Rowan Hamilton doesn't get the general credit he deserves.)

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[Tablizer]

I know two conservatives who claim that Satan deceives scientists and politicians when it comes to certain technology. Satan is not deceiving them with regard to GPS and smartphone research, but is when it comes to evolution etc.

Logic won't work on such beliefs. A demon in the sky can do evil or skip evil whenever it feels like it.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[lightknight]

What if it's being used with Windows 8?

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[drinkypoo]

why, I just can't even bring myself to talk about some of the things prolonged Vista use can cause.

It truly is one of the great evils of this world. I use only a very small amount of Vista and only occasionally, and every time I do it leads to a great deal of staring dumbly forward while waiting for something to happen, often accompanied by what seems like Tourette's syndrome.

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[GameboyRMH]

That only makes computers cooler IMO! \m/

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[mrvan]

Obligatory xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/154/

FTFY

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[ericloewe]

You sound like there is only one possible obligatory xkcd for each topic

Re:This IS Slashdot...

[dpilot]

That's because GPS needs to understand that Devil Science, special relativity.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

We certainly need a saviour from people like him

Well...

[lorinc]

If you don't like evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory, and believe it's all lies, then just don't bother with it. Leave alone the poor guys believing such insanities. Let them do as they want, if it's not true, they should not achieve anything dangerous, right?

In the end, we will see who was right...

Re:Well...

[noobermin]

The issue is this man is on a committee that helps oversee and draft science related bills in the House. Why are people like him and Akin get on these committees?

Re:Well...

[Pecisk]

Well, this guy doesn't actually say that he don't like them, they consider them evil. That's quite a step from "don't like it, don't care".

Re:Well...

[ColdWetDog]

Must be God's will. Nobody else could be that crazy.

Re:Well...

[tomhath]

"secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square."

- Barack Obama

Re:Well...

[nurb432]

In the end, we will see who was right...

Unless we find that science was right, as then you just die and wont know the difference.

Re:Well...

[thammoud]

Funny. Wish I had mod points.

Re:Well...

[couchslug]

Because Americans are deeply religious and he reflects genuine religious faith. Religion is the pursuit of primitive tribal society at all costs.

That's how Superstitionists think, and he's honest about his views.

"We must respect the other fellowâ(TM)s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
â" H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956),

Re:Well...

[Tanuki64]

Why issue? I am sure he won't hinder any science, which is used to build deadlier weapons. What more do Americans need?

Re:Well...

[girlintraining]

Must be God's will. Nobody else could be that crazy.

I think that may be a mistake in the translation. -- God

Re:Well...

[tmosley]

Science--->Immortality.

Hopefully in my lifetime and at my price point.

Re:Well...

[joocemann]

Why wouldn't a party that opposes logic and reason want a person who does exactly that on committees that are most highly focused on the biggest logic/reason branches of human activity?

It makes sense to me. Not that I agree with it, but I see why. They want the irrational GOP voice/meme to have direct influence in the political involvement in the opposing views (called 'rational') in the sciences.

Re:Well...

[BevanFindlay]

"Reflects genuine religious faith?" Not of anyone I know. As a Christian and an Engineer who loves both God and science (yes, we exist - shock, horror), guys like this sadden and infuriate me. It may surprise some of the readership of /. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee. I am starting to feel a little in the minority though: it's extremists in every direction.

You've got a skewed view of religion (probably due to people like Broun), and views like that only feed them into becoming more extreme. I think we'd all be better off if we calmed down and met in the middle somewhere to actually listen to each other, realising that it's ok to respect someone you disagree with (and ok to disagree with someone you respect).

After all, tolerance only begins when you disagree.

Re:Well...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

As a Christian and an Engineer who loves both God and science (yes, we exist - shock, horror), guys like this sadden and infuriate me. It may surprise some of the readership of /. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee. I am starting to feel a little in the minority though: it's extremists in every direction.

Oh, stop whining. We know perfectly well that there are religious people who are capable of rational thought. We also know--and this is the point to which you seem to be wilfully blinding yourself--that there are a whole lot of people who deliberately allow their religious beliefs to override whatever capability they have for rationality, and that their more rational co-believers are doing nothing to stop them. Before you start slinging mud at nonbelievers ("extremists in every direction," as though there were any equivalence here) you might want to recall a certain line in your own holy book about motes, beams, and eyes.

Re:Well...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Probably not much different from the way Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China all got seats on the UN Human Rights Council. Politics.

Re:Well...

[Tom]

then just don't bother with it. Leave alone the poor guys believing such insanities

You miss the point of both his nonsense and religion in general.

This is not about what he thinks or does. It is about controlling others. Religion is a dinosaur from times when politics worked by divine mandate. The early rulers of human tribes and ancient civilizations originated either from the warrior or from the priest class.

Religion is a form of oppression, control and politics. If you see it as anything else (especially as ethics) you've already fallen for half the trick.

Re:Well...

[Stirling Newberry]

Just because life will go on doesn't mean your life will go on.

Re:Well...

[evil_aaronm]

We have been kind of bad, lately. Maybe Broun is His way of punishing us.

Re:Well...

[Seumas]

I don't buy it when people make these claims. How do you reconcile the two?

Re:Well...

[readin]

Why wouldn't a party that opposes logic and reason want a person who does exactly that on committees that are most highly focused on the biggest logic/reason branches of human activity?

So you're saying that's why the Dems don't object to him being placed on the committee. Makes sense to me.

Re:Well...

[readin]

"secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square."

- Barack Obama

And yet Obama does not just ask, but orders under penalty of law, that believers leave their religion at the door when they enter the marketplace.

Re:Well...

[bidule]

"What God wants, God gets. God help us all!"

One word, three meanings.

Re:Well...

[gagol]

Sorry about that. -Google translate

Re:Well...

[arth1]

you might want to recall a certain line in your own holy book about motes, beams, and eyes.

I think you misspelled moties.
And surely we all love the holy book of Niven & Pournelle.

Speaking of eye mutilations, I have through thorough research (and four pints of bitter) come to the conclusion that what was really meant in another famous passage is that it's easier to put a needle through a rich man's eye than to launch a camel into space.

Re:Well...

[lightknight]

Sanitation, medical engineering, flight, etc.

Re:Well...

[Tom]

Absolutism.

A king can be overthrown, a dynasty can be terminated, a lineage can be brought to an end. A god remains. You can not remove him, you can not question him, change him, heck in the abrahamic religions you can not even hide from him, not even your thoughts.

Hitchens had it right: What a dictatorship!

If you'd rather have a halfway decent democracy over even a benevolent dictator, then how can you stand for having a religion?

Re:Well...

[couchslug]

Prove your God is real and I'll be interested. Otherwise, you are just propagating what you cannot support.

Faith and mystery aren't Proof or Evidence.

Re:Well...

[joocemann]

I didn't say that. I was talking about the GOP. Nice try at retelling what I said backwards with your own words. F U for that.

Re:Well...

[tehcyder]

The problem is that religious people are capable of rational thought but not about their religion .

It's analogous to how a mentally ill person can live an apparently normal life, but still believe that the government are using secret radiowaves to read their thoughts (or whatever). I wouldn't mind going out for a drink with them, but I wouldn't leave them alone with my kids.

Re:Well...

[tehcyder]

"secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square."

- Barack Obama

You can take your fucking religion in with you, along with your crazed beliefs in the Aryan Master Race, tooth fairies, the power of astrology, a flat Earth, dinosaurs living in the north pole or whatever other rubbish you want, just don't mention them. Ever. Unless you want to lose all credibility.

Re:Well...

[tehcyder]

Science--->Immortality. Hopefully in my lifetime and at my price point.

If it's not at everybody's "price point" immediately it's possible, you will have the revolution to end all revolutions.

Re:Well...

[BevanFindlay]

I made the comment "extremists in every direction" because I see every group - Christians, atheists, Muslims, pro- or anti-climate change groups, left- or right-wing politics, pro-life or pro-choice, others - all taking extreme viewpoints, rather than the more moderate "You know what, I think this, but I am actually going to listen to you and not be nasty about it, and respect the fact you think differently, as really, we don't have all the answers." Everyone seems to know it all, even on things that really aren't certain either way.

I value hearing from people with different viewpoints - it's enriching. I have realised that I don't know anyone with whom I agree on everything, and I certainly don't know everything - I know that some things I think are true won't be, just like everyone else (I'm just not certain what), so better not to be too arrogant about what I do know. Guys like the subject of the original article though don't seem open to listening to others, and it saddens me.

Also, if you can't see how some very vocal atheists are holding extremist viewpoints (as an aside, I was talking about views and ideas more than actions), I'm a little surprised. After all, atheism in it's strong form ("there is no god at all") is to assert something you actually cannot know. Also, this (and the article it came from). :-)

Re:Well...

[BevanFindlay]

Don't buy it? Interesting. You might want to get out more and meet more people. :-)

Though, sarcasm aside, it is a valid question, but probably one that requires a longer answer than I could do justice to in a faceless /. posting. :-)

For me, it mainly comes down to two things: (1) I have looked at most of the major belief systems and spent a lot of time nutting them out to try to follow their logic through to conclusion, and found that all of them have something that they can't quite answer, but Christianity for me has the least "unanswered questions" (and has possible answers for those, even if some of the answers aren't very satisfying); (2) Remembering that most of what we think we know is uncertain and our understanding of science changes over time. Saying, "this proves that the Bible is wrong!" is something I have only heard from those who don't actually understand it - yes, there are some places where it's obvious that one or other of a literal interpretation of the Bible or our current understanding of science are in direct conflict, but I think it's less than most make it out to be. Thing is, places like Genesis actually aren't trying to be a science text book, and there are a number of ways that the two could reconcile (depending on a balance between how reliable our science is and how literally you take the text).

I feel sorry for those who have only seen anti-science, extremist Christians with the culture but not the reality (like Broun). Seeing that sort of thing, I am not surprised that people like you find it hard to think that some of us could be sane. :-) If you find the right sort of group (or book), you might be very surpised at how solid the logic is behind good theology, and how many of the questions people think defeat Christianity actually have sound answers.

Also, as an engineering student, I see how many experimental results are pretty shoddy and how many academics like to think they're right, rather than actually looking for true answers even if they're not what they wanted to hear. ;-)

Hope this helps. :-)

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't people stop having imaginary friends when they grow up? Especially imaginary friends with ulterior motives.

Re:Post bigotry here

[YukariHirai]

I'm not anti-religious, I'm anti-idiot. I'm fine with people believing in God, but not people who think that said belief means science is wrong.

The Pops is OK with it

[firex726]

I wonder what he would think of the Pope saying that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and church doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_John_Paul_II

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what he would think of the Pope saying that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and church doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_John_Paul_II

Considering Broun is Southern Baptist, I bet he'd call it papist devilry and add Catholicism to the list.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[Anonymous Coward]

According to some So-Bo's, Catholicism is of Satan.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[Seumas]

The only sure thing is that all of these ignorant religious retards are going to get us all fucking killed on the sidelines in their rush to wipe each other off the earth and deliver the self-prophesied Armageddon in their life times that they can't stop creaming their pants over.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[WGFCrafty]

Some evangelicals believe the pope to be the anti-christ. It would confirm their theory.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[toriver]

Well, duh, they ban contraception - more babies that way :)

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[maxwell demon]

That explains why Big Bang is on the list. That one was first proposed by a Jesuit.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[maxwell demon]

Actually many Christians didn't consider the pope to be anybody special even in the Middle Ages.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[fm6]

Actually, that's just one of many churchs eastern churches that have papal issues. But most American Christians are Protestants, and thus care more about Martin Luther and John Calvin than about whether you should use leavened flour to make sacramental wafers.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I see Christianity as a key part of western history. It bugs me how ignorant many Americans (like TPP) are on the subject.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[tehcyder]

I wonder what he would think of the Pope saying that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and church doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_John_Paul_II

LOL all True Believers know that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Re:The Pops is OK with it

[vandamme]

You realize that the Big Bang was proposed by a Papist? Fr. Georges Lemaitre.

GOP should propose a Pseudoscientific Method

[Anonymous Coward]

Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Test
Accept Jesus into your Heart
Analysis

What impact will it have on STEM education?

[rogerz]

Well, if the federal government didn't control education policy and funding, then it would have no impact whatsoever. If you advocate the involvement of government in education, you can have very little to say in opposition to elected officials' pedagogical opinions being leashed on the classroom.

Re:What impact will it have on STEM education?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you advocate the involvement of government in education, you can have very little to say in opposition to elected officials' pedagogical opinions being leashed on the classroom.
What a false dichotomy (Tea Party much?). Try the the 3rd option: Yes, you actually can have completely valid criticism.
Look at the educational successes of other countries as well as America's and rethink your 'big government is the problem' American exceptionalism talking point.

Re:What impact will it have on STEM education?

[tehcyder]

Well, if the federal government didn't control education policy and funding, then it would have no impact whatsoever. If you advocate the involvement of government in education, you can have very little to say in opposition to elected officials' pedagogical opinions being leashed on the classroom.

Yeah, you should just leave education up to the people who know best, i.e. the churches instead. What could possibly go wrong?

Even more reason

[Aryden]

Why I believe that we need to do a great deal of redistricting and add more congress-critters. 435 people are just not enough to get a decent cross section or represent enough of the U.S. How can 1 person represent an average of 716,000 people.

Re:Even more reason

[Ice Station Zebra]

Absofuckingluetly.

Re:Even more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

There's enough congress critter wrangling to be done to get anything passed as is. I'm not sure adding more congressman will change anything positively. What WILL change things is reversing district Gerrymandering and making more congressional seats truly competitive.

Re:Even more reason

[ArsonSmith]

Or just restrict the power of the federal government to be in line with the original intent of the constitution rather than the current "regulate interstate trade" clause means regulate everything. Then let states decided how to distribute power among them selves.

Re:Even more reason

[houghi]

You have a two party system and you think that 435 is not enough?
Multiple parties should be the first step.

Re:Even more reason

[tmosley]

Yes, this is a good idea. Further, they should not be given offices in Washington, and instead simply telecommute. That will make it harder for lobbyists and decrease taxpayer costs.

Re:Even more reason

[Black Parrot]

Why I believe that we need to do a great deal of redistricting and add more congress-critters. 435 people are just not enough to get a decent cross section or represent enough of the U.S. How can 1 person represent an average of 716,000 people.

It wouldn't help. The reason nutters get elected is because other nutters are more likely to vote. Double the number of districts and the same will still be true, so you'll just double the number of nutters.

If we had as many people voting as we have people complaining, we could fix most of our problems.

Re:Even more reason

[BevanFindlay]

The only way (realistically) to do that is to change the voting system - it was done here in New Zealand (from First Past the Post to Mixed Member Proportional) - and while it has introduced a bunch of other issues (like, more crackpots in parliament), it also utterly derailed the "us vs them" two-party dominance and allowed for a mixed set of political views (which I think America desperately needs). Seeing things like this though, I don't think MMP would mean more crackpots in the US government than are already there...

Re:Even more reason

[aaarrrgggh]

A "neighbor" of mine is running for Congress as an "independent." Coincidentally, he worked hard to change the primary system to an "open" primary. Statistically, he should represent the values of myself and my neighborhood quite well-- arguably too well as this neighborhood represents less than 5% of the district-- let's say 30,000 people.

His priorities are no better aligned with the direction that the country needs to go than his opponent, and neither have positions that align to my personal priorities.

Given that this is almost a best-case scenario (his opponent is from a very different neighborhood though), how can more districts and representatives help the problem? It is the two-party system, election finance, and legislative process (bills that can't be read, lobbyists) that need to be solved for anything else to have a meaningful impact.

Re:Even more reason

[Stirling Newberry]

Multiple parties break down into two wings in general, and the coalitions become permanent.

The problem is the citizenry, it is easier to change people's minds, and then change the government, than the other way around.

Re:Even more reason

[Stirling Newberry]

At which point they will have even less reason to compromise, and more reason to say things just like the rep in the video.

If you don't pay for government, it will belong to those who do.

Re:Even more reason

[Stirling Newberry]

It would make it much harder to pack and crack creating safe districts.

Has the additional benefit of making it more likely to have the winner of the popular vote win the Presidency.

Re:Even more reason

[smaddox]

Unfortunately the size of the house of representatives has remained capped at 435 since 1911, when Congress decided that not needing a larger building was more important than actually representing the views of the public.

Re:Even more reason

[dcollins117]

Or just restrict the power of the federal government to be in line with the original intent of the constitution rather than the current "regulate interstate trade" clause means regulate everything. Then let states decided how to distribute power among them selves.

Great idea. Everyone knows that local crazies are less crazy than federal crazies.

Re:Even more reason

[ArsonSmith]

Perhaps not less crazy, but the damage they can do will be much less.

Re:Even more reason

[toriver]

The center parties are not necessarily married to a wing, e.g. here in Norway the Farmers Party (their old name) has been in both center-right and center-left governments (they currently are in the latter).

Re:Even more reason

[drinkypoo]

At which point they will have even less reason to compromise, and more reason to say things just like the rep in the video.

The compromise is between what the voters will stand for, and what the corporations want.

It's OK if some of them say things just like this dirty windbag (windy dirtbag?) because if the representation is more proportional then all is well.

I object to the senate being as powerful as the house. That gives dinky states full of morons excessive power. I don't actually think any states are literally full of morons, but you know what I mean. Government of The People? Not hardly.

Re:Even more reason

[tmosley]

So, being able to walk to your representatives office disenfranchises you, while having to fly, and having all the lobbiests within walking distance increases the people's voice in government?

Let me guess, lobbyist?

Direct link to the video

[Anonymous Coward]

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge64kMFoQEo

It has the greatest Youtube comment I've ever read too:
'You know what this video needs? More deer heads.' Thank you, Crossss8!

This is a problem we solve through education

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's scary to think that this fellow will be making technology decisions for the rest of us, but just voting against him doesn't solve the problem.

It takes generations of well educated people to slough off these ridiculous old world superstitions. He probably has very nice salt-of-the-earth parents who worked hard all their lives and mis-attributed their success and happiness as gifts from a deity. A paycheck for living "good lives."

But in every generation kids question everything their parents stand for, adopting some, discarding others. If we keep educating them, if they see enough of the wide world to know that the only justice is what we make, that their are billions of people living good lives who believe completely different things, then they'll see through these lies, and pass along a different subset of their beliefs to their kids.

It's too late to fix this guy. if you want to vote out his successors, vote against ignorance; vote some of your hard earned money toward education. My parents did, and that's why this guy is now in the minority.

Re:This is a problem we solve through education

[riverat1]

His father was first elected to the Georgia state senate in 1963. Southern Democrats were a different kind of animal then.

Re:This is a problem we solve through education

[i286NiNJA]

Oh lord, I have a super religious roommate. Every good thing that happens.... God. Every bad thing that happens.... Still good, we just don't know why yet. I've actually brought up good things happening to me, or mulsims, buddhists, and mormons. Either god being mysterious, or the true evil doesn't just prance in with horns like we think. Depends on her mood. Most conversation with her about anything of substance reduces to canned responses that are usually not directly from the bible, each one short and used over and over even if it means digressing far off topic to get there.

She also becomes excited whenever the world inches closer to collapse or war, she denies this but it's become clear that she can't wait for everyone to die so she can go to heaven. I move out in a few days and after a year of this shit, life will be so beautiful (No doubt life away from her is another of God's blessings).

I didn't think this is what religious people actually thought but I've seen her talk to some more composed people who have similar views to her and they're just not as undisciplined with their mouths and actions until they're around one of their own. Truly frightening.

Re:This is a problem we solve through education

[Guy Harris]

His father was first elected to the Georgia state senate in 1963. Southern Democrats were a different kind of animal then.

His father was a different sort as well, as per this Salon article about Junior:

But the creation story of Paul Broun Jr. is also a powerful illustration of the political evolution that has taken place in the Deep South. His father, Paul Broun Sr., who died in 2005, was a Democrat who served in the Georgia Senate for 38 years, arriving in Atlanta in 1962 as a moderate from the university town, in the era of segregation and Lester Maddox. Broun Sr. was a Southern populist who fought to have government dollars spent inside his district to build up the infrastructure for a booming economy. One of his greatest bricks-and-mortar achievements is the perimeter highway that now circles the congested downtown of Athens; today that road is named the Paul Broun Sr. Highway. The father’s success and those road signs provided priceless name recognition and a kind of free advertising for Paul Broun Jr. — even though the son is an ultra-conservative Republican who is dedicated to fighting to kill the types of government projects that his father had championed.

Today, Paul Broun Jr. talks of his dad as someone with whom he differed politically at times but for whom he had enormous respect. The favor wasn’t always returned. “His father denied him,” a Democratic state lawmaker from junior Broun’s congressional district — Alan Powell of Hartwell, Georgia — says. Powell was a close friend of the father who initially doubted the two men could even be related to each other when he heard of the Republican Broun’s extremist views in the 1990s. “That’s my crazy-ass son,” Powell says his colleague sighed after he asked Broun Sr. about it at lunch one day.

Re:This is a problem we solve through education

[tehcyder]

I admire your optimism, but the fact is that the US has had many generations of well educated people. Your problem is your belief in capitalism and hard work as being the be all and end all of civilisation and culture, it is just unfortunate that this has got entwined with religion to create the Protestant Work ethic ideal.

Depressing

[Emetophobe]

He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

This makes me angry and depressed at the same time.

Re:Depressing

[abirdman]

It's worse, I'm pretty sure this guy is the chair of the committee.

Re:Depressing

[Mt._Honkey]

Not the chair, that's Ralph Hall. Broun is though the chair of the Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

Re:Depressing

[jfengel]

AKA the Subcommittee for Supoenas and Persecution. I'm sure it will come as a shock to absolutely nobody that he's also a climate denier who wants to haul climate scientists in front of the subcommittee to investigate their "hoax":

http://onlineathens.com/stories/022311/new_789646706.shtml

Re:Depressing

[Black Parrot]

It's worse, I'm pretty sure this guy is the chair of the committee.

Maybe we can get Clint Eastwood to have a word with him.

Re:Depressing

[Black Parrot]

what really should make you depressed and angry is that there is such a thing as 'House Committee on Science, Space and Technology' in the first place. None of it is Constitutional and none of it belongs in government.

Are you saying that the Constitution forbids the House to form committees?

Re:Depressing

[roman_mir]

No, Constitution doesn't 'forbid' anything actually (except for amendments, which are a way to confuse the issue). Constitution allows government certain functions and everything else is forbidden. Whatever is not expressly allowed is not allowed and running a committee on space etc., it's not expressly allowed.

Re:Depressing

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Constitution allows government certain functions and everything else is forbidden. Whatever is not expressly allowed is not allowed and running a committee on space etc., it's not expressly allowed.

Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings ..." The formation of committees is entirely within the scope of this power.

Re:Depressing

[Stirling Newberry]

That's categorically untrue.

Re:Depressing

[Seumas]

The constitution is written to inversely state the limitations of citizens (anything not stated is the right of free men) and the allowance of government role (anything not stated is NOT the right of government).

But we've forgotten that somewhere along the line and have the idea that government has all granted authority *unless* expressly forbidden by the constitution and that citizens have *no* right to a freedom unless specifically *noted* in the constitution.

And we eat it up like idiots, because we're educated by that same government.

Re:Depressing

[Strange Attractor]

It just makes me sad. Many decades ago I grew up in a Bible Belt town of 90K immersed in Broun's point of view (and accent). Watching the video was sickening. It was so familiar. I had hoped that rather than it simply being that I moved physically, the world had moved on. I was sadly wrong.

Re:Depressing

[davesque]

It's worse, I'm pretty sure this guy is the chair of the committee.

Maybe we can get Clint Eastwood to have a word with him.

Clint Eastwood might not have much to say to that chair. He's leaning right lately :P.

Re:Depressing

[roman_mir]

Yes it is true, Constitution is a firewall, like PF on a BSD server, which by default blocks all ports. Politicians are like terrible admins, who are trying to open every port possible so that your system will be under threat of all the attacks possible. Constitution is the way to protect your servers by denying politicians the access.

Re:Depressing

[drinkypoo]

Yes it is true, Constitution is a firewall, like PF on a BSD server, which by default blocks all ports

The constitution is a firewall, like whatever was built into the first wireless routers that always got owned, because it has massive gaping holes in it. The primary example is the interstate commerce clause, which is functionally a blank check, but there are others (including one of the replies to your comments above.)

Re:Depressing

[SuperTechnoNerd]

And scary. For the first time i am at a loss for words..

It's worth remembering some people think that way

[Yoik]

You can't really reach a consensus on many issues when such differences exist. Democracy makes the Majority "right" so it is important not to let their views go unchallenged.

Re:Post bigotry here

[SydShamino]

Because they might be a U.S. Congressman who has a direct impact on science and technology funding, tax law, and application in this country?

This man is an idiot

[ffoiii]

His brain is not connected to a single rational thought, but he is a fucking elected congressman.

Re:This man is an idiot

[Tanuki64]

So, the man is an idiot. What are the people who elected him?

Re:This man is an idiot

[jfengel]

Georgians.

Re:This man is an idiot

[rrohbeck]

He might also be very smart, telling his constituents what they want to hear to be (re-)elected and make boatloads of money.
I always have to think how L. Ron Hubbard must nearly have died from laughing whenever he was alone. So did Joe Smith probably. Being a lying hypocritic asshole usually gets rewarded.

Re:This man is an idiot

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Uber idiots.

Re:This man is an idiot

[Sprouticus]

In trouble.

What exactly did he say?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the article says about his audience is that it was "a sportsman’s banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell". Can anyone provide more detailed information on the rest of his speech or put it in better context?

Re:What exactly did he say?

[Doubting Sapien]

It is up on the church's website: http://libertybc.ws/ministries/sportsmanBanquet.cfm There is a youtube clip of his "testimony".

Newsflash: Religion != myth oriented Christianity

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It's entirely possible to have a well developed sense of the divine (without knowing exactly what it is and understanding that it may be entirely neurological) and be entirely free of Christianity, Islam, or any other fan club affiliation that requires an unproven belief in invisible friends, holy war, talking snakes, ritual blood drinking and/or body eating or additional taxation in the form of tithing.

Cheers!

Unclear How...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no connection between evolution and my need for a savior - I'm a miserable sinner and I know it - except that evolution helped arrive at this understanding.

The thing about science...

[Luminary Crush]

... is that it's true whether you believe in it, or not.

Re:The thing about science...

[the_B0fh]

the problem isn't whether science is true (whether you believe in it or not).

the problem is that he is actively stopping us from *discovering* the bits of science that we have not yet discovered.

Re:The thing about science...

[jayveekay]

And also the problem is that he would prevent the application of scientific solutions to problems where the solutions are known.

Why bother to reduce carbon emissions if you believe that it's all part of God's plan or that God will save those who deserve saving?

Even more scary, if the President believes in heaven and all that goes with it, then it's pretty darn scary to us non-believers that the President has the nuclear football with him at all times. Because we see nuclear armageddon as the end of our existence, not the transition to some newer, better place like he does

Re:The thing about science...

[scsirob]

Interesting detail here.. In the world population there are hundreds of versions of "God". All of them proclaimed "Almighty".

Funny though, none of these almighty gods are mighty enough to have their guy dominate. Been like this forever.

So, tell me again, which version of God is true, and how are you going to prove all others are false??

Republican Idiots are everywhere

[thammoud]

Michele Bachmann serves on the house intelligence committee. She was probably appointed by the moron from Georgia.

Where exactly is this Hell-Pit?

[badford]

I'd like to take a visit. Seems like there's some good science going on in there. I'll just wait by the edge and catch a few big ones.

(am i even allowed to post a comment on a story I submitted? I best consult the hell-pit.)

Re:Where exactly is this Hell-Pit?

[fm6]

As every Buffy fan knows, it's under a suburb in Southern California.

Re:Where exactly is this Hell-Pit?

[TrekkieGod]

As every Buffy fan knows, it's under a suburb in Southern California.

Don't forget there's another hellmouth in Cleveland.

Re:Where exactly is this Hell-Pit?

[Jason Levine]

I thought it was in New Jersey... Oh wait. That's just Robot Hell.

Re:Where exactly is this Hell-Pit?

[fm6]

And 1,000 years in the future!

he should be fired!

[FudRucker]

for conflict of interest

And this...

[CajunArson]

is why having Government run everything is a bad idea. Sure, you get your pro-science Obama (well... pro some selected kinds of science at least, try getting him to approve research into reprocessing nuclear waste and he'll give you a response that's the left-wing equivalent of this guy's speech), but then you get these wackos.

The typical Slashdot solution is to put the people they disagree with into concentration camps in the name of "science", but the smart solution is to make it so that people can be free to be whackos without wielding huge amounts of power over everyone else.

Re:And this...

[CajunArson]

Do you know what the definition of a free country is?

It is *not*: Oh if I vote and all my friends vote and only the people who we want to get into government wield power then I'll have what I want because the people with guns running things are on our "side".

No: It is this: The power of government is constrained so that *even if I don't vote or even if my candidates of choice aren't in power 100% of the time it doesn't matter because their power is limited*.

When we here the usual trope from some 1%er celebrity about how he'll leave the country if Republican politician X is not publicly lynched, it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how government should be structured.

To put it another way: Any person who has absolutely no probem granting Obama insane amounts of power because they somehow feel he'll only screw-over their enemies but is terrified that Romney might have the same amount of power is doing it wrong. Neither one should have that amount of power to begin with whether you agree with him or not.

Re:And this...

[AK Marc]

Your definition of a free country sounds like "a dictatorship by a dictator who agrees with me." If people can vote or have a say, then they can change the system. There's nothing in the Constitution that would stop a Constitutional Convention from passing a simple Amendment that repealed the Constitution and instituted a completely new one that retained none of the original. And it would be all legal and according to the Constitution.

Since you don't like the idea of that change, you don't like the Constitution, like do many libertarians who are anti-democracy.

Re:And this...

[AK Marc]

My problems with libertarins is that I am one. I'm disgusted with the anti-liberty anti-democracy loonitarians. I've been to party meetings in Texas and Alaska, and they seemed more group therapy sessions for nutcases in tinfoil hats than people interested in improving government and life.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't think any extra power to him is a good thing. The irony is so many people people complaining about Obama's power were the ones supporting it when given to Bush.

And your comments on Romney, are you going to start defending his 47% and 49% comments? I've been in the 49%. My mother worked her whole life, raising two children on her own, and now that she's retired and 70, anyone living with her (including me 4 years ago) is part of the 49% leaches. I'm a government leach because I let my mother move in with me to save her money. If I had kicked out my mother, then I wouldn't have been a leach.

His out of touch comments that are aggressively anti-poor speak for themselves, and no amount of context changes that.

Re:And this...

[Stirling Newberry]

Corporations and wealthy elites fund religion at a furious pace. There is always a government, the reason many of us are sick to death of the randroids et al, is that they are in a tight alliance with the religious right to first destroy democracy, and then fight over the spoils.

Or did you miss who the GOP VP nominee is? Clearly Libertarianism is more comfortable in the party of Darwin Denial, than any place else.

What about our evolution creates these people?

[ehiris]

I wonder what evolutionary trait creates people that accept belief as truth over scientific method and proven theories.
Can it be the fact that people who didn't accept authoritarian belief ended up being stoned and burned over it?

What exactly sets the people who create these beliefs apart? Do they really believe that or do they just use it to their advantage?

Even Einstein turned into a buffoon once religion got to him. All his great theories and discoveries were done during his "atheist" phase. What genetic trait triggered his switch to belief over theory?

Re:What about our evolution creates these people?

[badford]

I wonder what evolutionary trait creates people that accept belief as truth over scientific method and proven theories.
Can it be the fact that people who didn't accept authoritarian belief ended up being stoned and burned over it?

What exactly sets the people who create these beliefs apart? Do they really believe that or do they just use it to their advantage?

Even Einstein turned into a buffoon once religion got to him. All his great theories and discoveries were done during his "atheist" phase. What genetic trait triggered his switch to belief over theory?

We are not rational creatures, we are myth seeking.

Joseph Campbell once said "Mythology can be defined as other peoples religion. Conversely, Religion can be thought of as misinterpreted mythology."

Myths are developed and created from beliefs. Beliefs are yanked directly from experience. As our tools for measuring experience improve, so do our beliefs.

So why don't people adopt new beleifs about the world when there is so much evidence to support them?

Myths (i.e religion) are very durable beliefs known as 'convictions'. They are extremely difficult to change because they are so entwined with a persons identity. They are like the legs of a table. You mess with a persons convictions and their whole world falls apart.

The odd thing is, to continue with the table analogy, you can put all sorts of wonky, contradictory beliefs on top of that tabl and the person will always default to defend the conviction, violently if necessary.

Re:What about our evolution creates these people?

[Stirling Newberry]

Religious belief is center in a particular lobe of the brain, and as such, evolved for fitness. Rationality is not always a selective advantage, nor is intelligence.

Re:What about our evolution creates these people?

[riverat1]

I'm not sure I'd say that there's and evolutionary advantage to religion per se so much as an advantage to some pieces of human nature that encourage religion. Humans are a social animal that forms communities and a religion is certainly a community. Humans want to understand the world around them which can lead to mythical explanations of things that are otherwise unexplainable. I think our understanding of time and desire to avoid death play into it also. Put that all together and you can get religion.

Re:Post bigotry here

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If he's right and only Protestant Young-Earth Creationist Republicans go to heaven, I'm willing to go to hell of my own accord if it means I'll never have to hear anything from them again.

Re:Post bigotry here

[loxosceles]

People do not live in a vacuum. People who believe in imaginary friends and believe those imaginary friends have sent facts and instructions for how to live, usually want to make everyone else believe those facts and live according to those instructions.

evolution, or lack thereof
foreign policy with countries dominated by other religions
the legal status of a fertilized embryo - stem cell research and abortion
contraception, sex education
porn
many other social policies

Obligitory XKCD

[Burning1]

http://xkcd.com/154/

Re:Obligitory XKCD

[Stirling Newberry]

There is always a government, it always has power. Libertarianism is the belief that money selects better that elections. We have the plutocracy you want, if you don't like it, perhaps you should re-examine your theory.

Re:Obligitory XKCD

[mdragan]

Lies! Libertarianism is not about trading election money in exchange for government sanctioned monopolies. That's what we have now, and it sure is no libertarianism.

Re:Obligitory XKCD

[drinkypoo]

Just more proof that Libertarianism is the only way to vote going forward.

Libertarianism is orthogonal to the actual solution, bioregionalism and representational government. Only one-third of our government is representational, "almost" like it was designed to minimize the voice of The People. Let's see, we give them one house of government and we don't actually let them vote for the presidency, that ought to keep the plebes in check.

People like him...

[bmo]

... have declared war on the rest of us. They have declared war on modern society.

And no, there isn't any reasoning with these people, the Dominionists. They are stone cold nuts and they even use the vocabulary of war in their screeds. Any attempt to reason with them is assuming that they are capable of rational thought. They are not. Deep down, they actually and truly believe that science is *the* enemy. It is a position that is beyond the reach of any rational thought, so ridicule is the only tool left. If given half a chance, they would drag us back to pre-inudustrial society with just the Bible as the sole text.

He needs to be held up to ridicule from sea to shining sea.

Give him a piece of your mind https://www.facebook.com/brounforcongress

--
BMO

Re:People like him...

[Tom]

There's no point in giving him a piece of your mind.

First, you should keep your mind, all of its pieces - he obviously doesn't use his, so he most probably wouldn't use yours.

Second, it only validates him. People who say things like that are either attention whores or really, really, really stupid or both. In either case, no matter what you say, he will see it as justification of his position.

Three, you are right that these fuckers have declared war on progress, humanity and everyone who isn't one of them. There's a point where you need to stop talking to the enemy and start fighting him.

Dawkins was right. We need more militant(*) atheists. We need to fight back because otherwise mankind just might enter a new dark age.

(*) Watch his TED speech before you make a fool out of yourself by saying anything about violence.

Re:People like him...

[dcollins117]

No, ridiculing him in public is much better. This brings his idiocy to the attention of more people. Besides, it's more fun.

Re:People like him...

[SuperTechnoNerd]

They are the Christian Taliban. It's like a mental illness.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Anti religious my ass, if science is straight from hell I get to wear black leathers and listen to heavy metal again. I might even get a motorbike! This flat top has unbeknownst to himself stumbled on a way to make science sexy. Yeah.

Roll on the groupies.

Re:Post bigotry here

[ehiris]

I'm fine with people believing in God too. That doesn't prevent me from thinking that they lack intelligence and mental strength.
Science never has the pretension of claiming belief but always just gives us theories which have a base in the physical (mathematical included) world.

Big Bang is not against the Bible

[Hentes]

Curiously, the Big Bang theory was often attacked for being "religious", that is stating that the Universe didn't always exist but was created a finite time ago.

Re:Big Bang is not against the Bible

[CajunArson]

You know that one of the first scientists to consider the Big Bang was.... a Catholic priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)

Re:Big Bang is not against the Bible

[Black Parrot]

Curiously, the Big Bang theory was often attacked for being "religious", that is stating that the Universe didn't always exist but was created a finite time ago.

Can you find anyone other than Hoyle who did that?

Re:Big Bang is not against the Bible

[gregmonkey]

I've always thought that creationism and evolution could co-exist... WAIT! Don't start typing yet and just keep reading. What is time is not constant and linear to an omniscient being? What if instead time is something closer to the inverse of an exponential function. In other words time becomes less compressed as He/She/It moves through it. This gives us the ability to say that the Christian/Hebrew creation story matches the proof of evolution that we have uncovered. The Bible also says that we were created in God's image so would it not stand to reason that even thought He/She/It would like to tinker with different thinks and be curious (I understand what omniscient means) about different outcomes and permutations (multiverse theory).

Re:Big Bang is not against the Bible

[hasdikarlsam]

Aha, someone is wrong! Even if they died a while ago. Let me correct that.

The big bang theory suggests there's a finite amount of past, but that doesn't mean the universe "was created a finite time ago". Time itself is part of the universe; it's a dimension, which only differs from the other three in how you calculate distances in space-time. (It's r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2, not plus as you might expect)

This is literally the only difference between time and space.

At this point you may be asking where causality comes from. Ah, but that's a different question, you see. If you're very curious, I would suggest reading The Clockwork Rocket (fiction, *very* well made, set in a universe where it's plus instead of minus..), or visiting http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1257 if you'd rather hear directly about this universe.

tl;dr: People tend to conflate time (causality) and time (the dimension). This works well enough for normal life, but not well enough for border conditions such as, oh, the big bang. Or some laboratory experiments. The universe is bounded in time, but that doesn't mean it was created anymore than the existence of a north pole lets you ask what is north of the north pole. "Why does the universe exist" is a valid question, but not one that can be solved by adding a creator, and one that would apply just as well to an eternal universe.

GOP = only for big biz

[Joe_Dragon]

GOP = only for big biz.

Re:GOP = only for big biz

[Black Parrot]

GOP = only for big biz.

No, being rich for other reasons is OK too.

Re:GOP = only for big biz

[codepunk]

Yep pretty much, then again big biz pays my wages. Simple really I like my job and my so called big biz pays me rather well.

Re:Post bigotry here

[UglyTool]

Sometimes it is easy to tell
who is or not mentally well.
Just ask them and see
if it's just a theory
or lies straight from the pit of hell.

Bias like this

[nurb432]

Should invalidate him to serve on that particular committee.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be a better idea if you had to pass some basic science (or whatever) test before you were able to chair a committee on science (or whatever).

But then I remember that congressmen are retarded people who got through life by pandering to the highest bidder

Re:Post bigotry here

[Telvin_3d]

Until their neighbors declared that, due to their majority on the local School Board, evolution, history, a large chunk of geology, and set theory will no longer be taught. And all children will have a compulsory christian values class. And if you have a problem with it you are free to set up a completely separate school system on your own. And a separate medical system. Heck, unless you are willing to do things all their way you are 'free' to personally replicate all of western society yourself.

For given values of 'free' a 'free society' ceases to be a society at all.

Worse than terrorists

[tsa]

People like this guy are worse than terrorist. A terrorist attack makes at most tens of thousands of people suffer. These Christian fundamentalists in high places can make sure that 100s of thousands of children don't get enough chances in life because they don't get the education they need.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[erroneus]

I was going to offer a completely different comment until I saw your comment.

They are not worse than terrorists. They *ARE* terrorists. The whole point of religion is to prey on fear. The wrath of god and the requirement of death and suffering for sins is written throughout. It is entirely about punishment for thinking wrong, acting wrong, dressing wrong and even eating wrong... and don't even look the wrong way lest ye be turned to salt.

The wrath of the loving god is all around us and we must repent or forever live in the jewish trash dump which has somehow become the "hell" we know and love today.

If ever there was a group of people who prey on others through terror...

Re:Worse than terrorists

[erroneus]

Did you actually READ your bible? It's all in there. I can't see how you can call yourself Jewish/Christian/Muslim without knowing the whole story. And if you're something else? eh... I got less to say about it...

Hail Xenu

Re:Worse than terrorists

[misexistentialist]

punishment for thinking wrong, acting wrong, dressing wrong and even eating wrong... and don't even look the wrong way

Post-religion, we have political correctness, an enormous criminal code, public decency laws, Bloomberg Dietary Edicts, obscenity laws/Male-Gaze-shaming, etc. Nothing has really changed, except there is even more hypocrisy, since each voter is trying to control the behavior of his neighbor without actually believing in the Law. And there is no forgiveness.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Post-religion, we have ...

The idea that we live in a world, or a nation, which can in any meaningful way be described as "post-religion" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[Raenex]

Did you actually READ your bible?

He is talking about all religions, not just Bible-based ones. You said: "The whole point of religion is to prey on fear." If you were specifically limiting yourself to the Bible-based ones, your phrasing was inaccurate.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[Raenex]

Nothing has really changed

We don't execute, torture, and imprison people for "blasphemy". Dogma can be challenged. Science like evolution is taught in schools. Our leaders don't claim divine right to rule as a dictator.

I'd say a lot has changed, and for the better. Of course in any society there's always going to be tension between individual freedoms and the good of society.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[evil_aaronm]

I keep asking, "What's the difference between Republicans and the Taliban?" Aside from the suit and tie, versus the head dress, I don't know, either.

Re:Worse than terrorists

[Guy Harris]

Nothing has really changed, except there is even more hypocrisy, since each voter is trying to control the behavior of his neighbor without actually believing in the Law.

Like that didn't happen back then.

'mockracy

[Progman3K]

No use calling it a democracy anymore, it's a mockery of what a democracy should be.
In a true democracy, you actually have people representing different sides of issues. This is clearly now no longer the case.

Re:'mockracy

[cpghost]

Democracy is merely the rule of the uneducated masses. Nuances don't matter; the system itself is deeply flawed, if the majority is mostly ignorant and/or superstitious. Just look at the so called "Arab Spring": what do you think uneducated people there vote for, when given a chance? They vote for the very same religious nuts as the people in Georgia who voted for this representative. Maybe, just maybe, democracy is not such a good idea, when you can't count on the majority to be more or less sane and grown up intellectually?

Re:'mockracy

[Progman3K]

I understand what you're saying but I was pointing out how for true debate to happen, both (or many) sides have to be represented fairly.

For example, you'd want someone deeply religious to represent the religious-interests and someone deeply scientific and rational to represent science-interests when debates occur.

When you stack the deck like this, it makes a mockery of the whole process.

Re:'mockracy

[Black Parrot]

No use calling it a democracy anymore, it's a mockery of what a democracy should be.
In a true democracy, you actually have people representing different sides of issues. This is clearly now no longer the case.

The world's first democracy was an evil empire.

Fortunately the USA is a constitutional republic, which at least buffers the excesses of democracy a bit.

Re:'mockracy

[Stirling Newberry]

The US is a representative plutocracy.

Re:'mockracy

[Black Parrot]

The US is a representative plutocracy.

Well put.

Re:'mockracy

[tehcyder]

Democracy is merely the rule of the uneducated masses. Nuances don't matter; the system itself is deeply flawed, if the majority is mostly ignorant and/or superstitious. Just look at the so called "Arab Spring": what do you think uneducated people there vote for, when given a chance? They vote for the very same religious nuts as the people in Georgia who voted for this representative. Maybe, just maybe, democracy is not such a good idea, when you can't count on the majority to be more or less sane and grown up intellectually?

It has been said many times before, that democracy may not be perfect but it's a lot better than the alternatives.

Nobody expects the...

[Fuzzums]

... republican inquisition!

Re:Nobody expects the...

[garnetlion]

Can we make this a meme? Complete with text badly photoshopped over Monty Python stills? Please?

Re:Nobody expects the...

[Fuzzums]

LOL. Doit, doit!

How about scientist community ?

[rroman]

I think that scientist ignore politics and such ludicrous claims too often. There should be strong visible position of the scientific community against these claims so that any sane even uninformed person could see, that such opinions are insane and unacceptable in modern society.

A new plan for America.

[ASimpleIdea]

http://secretsecret500.blog.com/2012/10/06/hello-world/ I've been trying to get some discussion going on this, but it's a royal pain in the ass to use slashdot with tor and privoxy enabled. Would anyone like to discuss it here in this thread? The message will most likely go viral if posted on facebook and twitter :)

Re:A new plan for America.

[YttriumOxide]

I've been trying to get some discussion going on this, but it's a royal pain in the ass to use slashdot with tor and privoxy enabled. Would anyone like to discuss it here in this thread? The message will most likely go viral if posted on facebook and twitter :)

Hints on how to get your message across better:

• 1) Stop spamming your link in multiple messages, it turns people off.
• 2) Explain some basics about your ideas in your (single) comment about it; and reflect it back to the topic so it's clear you're not just spamming it on any old story.
• 3) Re-write your webpage so that it's not just a pile of links with some poorly written text in between. I recommend separating out the topics to each point as a kind of paper and then, if you feel the need, write an overarching paper that links them together to show the relationship that appears to be missing to the readers of your current page.

The reason I'm taking time to reply is that SOME of the points on your page (from the glance that I gave it) seem relevant, interesting and important (such as the core point that nuclear power is not as dangerous as most people are led to believe and can be managed safely and efficiently, giving a strong net benefit to everyone). However the way you're trying to get the message across is exactly the same as that used by crackpots, idiots, conspiracy theorists and so on. Noone will take you seriously in the slightest.

Outta here

[IceNinjaNine]

Fuck it. I'm about to punch through an MS in Comp Sci. What's it take to immigrate to Canada nowadays? You know, a nation that's rational? Sigh.

Re:Outta here

[macbeth66]

Yeah, take the lazy coward's way out.

Fund his opponent in the next election. Put in some time in getting the competition elected.

No? I guess not. Let some one else fight your battles.

At least the members of the misguided 'Occupy Wall Street' organization put in the effort.

Re:Outta here

[compro01]

I'll take it you haven't been paying attention to Canadian politics. Our current government is running a bit of a deficit in the "rationality" department.

Re:Outta here

[Guy Harris]

I'll take it you haven't been paying attention to Canadian politics. Our current government is running a bit of a deficit in the "rationality" department.

...and perhaps for not-unrelated reasons.

Re:Outta here

[FauxReal]

Y

Fund his opponent in the next election. Put in some time in getting the competition elected.

And amazingly enough the next election is this November and he's running without a democrat (or any other as far as I know) opponent. It's being handed to him.

Re:Outta here

[tehcyder]

At least the members of the misguided 'Occupy Wall Street' organization put in the effort.

They were only misguided in being over-optimistic about the level of political insight in most Americans. When push comes to shove, too many of you fall for the old "anyone can become a billionaire" bollocks, and so the majority cheerfully chain themselves to the feet of their capitalist masters and think they are free.

Re:Post bigotry here

[ASimpleIdea]

Sometimes there's a very clear line between good and evil. http://secretsecret500.blog.com/2012/10/06/hello-world/

Wrong conclusion (after my opinion):

[zapyon]

> If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.

Shouldn't that be:

If humans are mostly water (70%), and beer is mostly water (95%), then beer consists of diluted humans, or does it? ;-)

Re:Wrong conclusion (after my opinion):

[jvkjvk]

If you consider any water that has been in the interior or a cell of a human being as "human", then it is entirely correct to call most beer - diluted humans.

Cheers!

Re:Post bigotry here

[fredgiblet]

I for one welcome our new Canadian overlords

Fire him

[Murdoch5]

Evolution is fact, it happens, we know it happens, there is proof. I have one question for him, "Can you prove creationism?" , The answer is no. I'm not about to debate what the right answer is but if your sitting on a board that regulates part of the school system then you must bow to logic and reason and evolution is the only reasonable choice. If you pick creationism then you need to bow to every single possible variant. There is no difference between Jesus and Harry potter as far as science goes, both had "wands" both used "magic" and both at least to me don't really exist.

Re:Fire him

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is fact

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution can best be described as a 'manifest' fact derived from a host of theories that support the main hypothesis. There are no direct, reproducible experiments that proves evolution to be fact. All we have are observations as to the likelyhood that evolution is responsible for the diversity and common lineage of life on Earth. To state that evolution is a fact gives morons like Broun and the the idiots that support him more ammunition to support their statements as 'truth'.

Re:Fire him

[Empiric]

I think, "evolution happens", does not logically lead to the conclusions you wish it did.

Re:Fire him

[Murdoch5]

It does, that's fact, they have found physical evidence of human evolution through fossil records. Regardless of how evolution started it happens. Anyone can claim the "theory" of evolution was sent from hell to mask gods will but then I ask those people to explain and disprove the fossil evidence. There is nothing wrong with bashing established idea but you need to back your claim with the same or better evidence, saying "God created everything" is no more valid then saying aliens built the pyramids.

Re:Fire him

[Empiric]

"Evolution happens" (e.g. bacteria, -some of- more complex organism evolution) is a provable claim, and noncontroversial even going by what is described by, say, the bible itself regarding hybridization.

"There is evidence of human evolution" is a provable claim, and "evidence" is provably not "proof", and you yourself are denying "evolution" (as you erroneously use the term) is "proven" with your own sentence.

"The sole causal factor leading to human biology is evolution", is not provable, is not even testable, and as such is not science.

Just make up your mind as to what your claim is.

And no, there is a great deal of evidence for Judeo-Christian theism. That you aren't aware of evidence, does not mean there isn't any. To introduce a little philosophy into the discussion, you claiming that, is -impossible- to state validly as an epistemological claim (a claim of possible actual knowledge), always, for every topic. There may or may not be evidence for the Copehangen Interpretation of QM being better than the Everett Interpretation. There may or may not be someone who knows the evidence, indeed the facts, of what happened at 1 AM on the corner of Main and State street, when people heard gunshot fire. You know whether you know something. You can say whether somebody else knows or has evidence of something. You can -never- say that you know nobody has evidence of something, because that states that you have universal psychic powers to scan everyone's brain and note the absence of the evidence in everyone else on Earth's brain. It's Philosophy 101.

For the wider question of "evidence", here's something peer-reviewed to get you started.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Since I've done it a hundred times, and simply don't feel like doing it again tonight, I won't argue the endless goalpost-shifts on this as to whether it is "proof" or not. Virtually nothing in existence is "proven". You want evidence, you now have evidence. More is available for the price of a google search.

Re:Fire him

[Murdoch5]

Fair enough but then there is nothing stopping me from making a statement like "Everything was created from a stick, anyone who believes differently is blinded from distraction and self doubt and should not be allowed life". You can tell me they haven't really "proven" evolution but pretty much every single point in human existence relies on it.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Its a pretty valid point, right down to fundamental parts of matter, the ATOM you see evolution, you see it in Alpha and Beta decay. My point is that I don't think it's fair for someone to inject completely false points into a board who's sole mission is to regulate science. Using the pretty sad argument of God allows you to just ignore anything you want and keep moving, God is a great escape from explanation and reason because everything religion teaches is about believing on faith and not evidence.

Re:Fire him

[Sparky McGruff]

The question isn't "Can you prove creationism". It's "What evidence would you accept that would DISprove creationism." There are lots of things that could be found that would cause us to throw huge chunks of evolutionary theory in the trash heap. I can't imagine that a "young earth creationist" would ever tell you that any evidence would make them change their mind. If it's impossible to disprove, then any argument is a waste of time.

Re:Fire him

[Murdoch5]

With evolution I can look at thousands of years of what I'm going to call pretty solid evidence, for creationism I'm going with books written by men. Using science, man has been able to create the fundamental experiment which caused the creation of a nucleic acid, Ive never seen anything even 1/100000th as substantial for religion, I've seen dirty cloth, old wood and been told verses from a poorly written book. If this man sat on the board of religion class in schools I wouldn't say anything, I would agree with him but he doesn't, science doesn't work on blind faith. If it does then anyone who makes a claim also makes a scientific discovery.

Re:Fire him

[Guy Harris]

The whole problem with the matter is this:

Many people that consider themselves 'creationists' and are very vocal about the issue are ignorant of the very beliefs they claim to be proponents of.

Which beliefs are those? Those of "young earth" creationists or those of "old earth" creationists?

What exactly do you mean when you say 'evolution'? What I have found is that in the minds of many it is all inclusive (especially when taken into the context of the creation/evolution debate)- including everything from the origin of matter

Well, yes, anybody who thinks "evolution" includes the origin of matter is clueless - evolutionary theory has nothing to say about quark-gluon plasmas, matter/anti-matter symmetry, and the like.

For example, evolutionists are quick to say that creationism makes no predictions and therefore cannot be tested by the scientific method. This has been proven false over and over

So what are some of the predictions made by that particular segment of creationist (the ones who don't deny micro-evolution - and are, I suspect, mainly old earth creationists) that are different from those made by evolutionists and that have been proven true?

Re:Fire him

[Empiric]

Since you're posting AC, I'll spend a minimal amount of time refuting your statement.

To be evidence, a given piece of evidence does -not- have to be evidence for one and only one explanation.

If a recently-fired gun is found at the home of a murdered person's ex-wife, matching the type of bullets used to kill him, it is evidence -both- that she may have killed him, -and- that her new boyfriend may have killed him. Stating that it could have been the other than the person charged, does -not- make it no longer evidence for each person's guilt individually.

Similarly, the entirety of physics is evidence for the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, -and- evidence for the Everett Interpretation. That the other one may ultimately be true does not alter that the rest of physics is evidence that that each, individually, is plausibly true.

This is always the case, for every context, regarding evidence, based on what "evidence" simply means, for everything. Naming another possibility does alter that evidence is indeed evidence for the thing evidenced. Such evidence was what was requested, and provided.

Either you pretty-much avoid introspection and thinking about the basic soundness of your ideas at all as a matter of habit, or you already knew this, and apply it that way with every topic other than religion, every single day. But, "intellectual hypocrisy" is a topic for another day.

Re:Post bigotry here

[fredgiblet]

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Re:Post bigotry here

[clarkkent09]

Until their neighbors declared that, due to their majority on the local School Board, evolution, history, a large chunk of geology, and set theory will no longer be taught. And all children will have a compulsory christian values class. ....And if you have a problem with it you are free to set up a completely separate school system on your own.
 
That doesn't make sense. Having a School Board assumes a public school system, which means that creationism or 'compulsory christian values' cannot be taught (establishment clause). Not having a public school system means private schools which currently exist and can teach whatever they want, and yet for the most part teach proper science and not creationism, So your idea that the moment government steps out of something it will all immediately be taken over by religious nuts is unjustified.

Re:Post bigotry here

[couchslug]

Prove your Sky Fairie is real. Now. Refute his/her/its doubters, and I will kowtow, recant, and kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage.

There is no reason to believe in a doctrine which has no evidence to support it.

There is no reason to respect Superstitionsts, for their dogma opposes the search for truth.

Re:Post bigotry here

[fm6]

Science says that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is impossible. (Some stupid argument about the weight of pasta.) Therefore science is wrong. QED.

hypocracy?

[Doubting Sapien]

Well, how about applying his own test to the comments under scrutiny? From his own home page http://broun.house.gov/ at the HoR website:

BROUN'S 4-WAY TEST

I am committed to protecting the constitutional rights and pocketbooks of every American. I will apply the following four-way test to every piece of legislation that comes before the House for a vote:

1) Is it Right/Moral?
2) Is it Constitutional?
3) Is it Necessary?
4) Is it Affordable?

Ask Slashdot: Is Paul Broun fit to be:

1) A US legislator - responsible for national policy affecting Science, Space and Technology.
2) A medical professional - tasked with health care of the sick and ill.
3) An American Citizen - (ideally) part of a rational, responsible, and well-informed electorate.
4) A Christian - committed to following the teachings of Christ.
5) A Homo Sapien - the name, more or less, means "of the same wisdom/intelligence".

Re:hypocracy?

[Black Parrot]

Well, how about applying his own test to the comments under scrutiny? From his own home page http://broun.house.gov/ at the HoR website:

BROUN'S 4-WAY TEST

I am committed to protecting the constitutional rights and pocketbooks of every American. I will apply the following four-way test to every piece of legislation that comes before the House for a vote:

1) Is it Right/Moral?

2) Is it Constitutional?

3) Is it Necessary?

4) Is it Affordable?

IOW, he'll vote for whatever he wants to vote for, just like every other fake or self-deluded ideagogue.

Re:hypocracy?

[Guy Harris]

...Homo Sapien - the name, more or less, means "of the same wisdom/intelligence".

Minor nit - you're mixing Greek ("homo" as "of the same") with Latin ("sapien" as "wise/intelligent"). In Latin, "homo" means "man"; see this online etymology dictionary, for example.

Re:hypocracy?

[LifesABeach]

Is this the "Borun Supremacy", or the "Borun Identity?"

An Apology

[Nidi62]

As a native and resident of the state of Georgia, let me apologize to the Slashdot community on behalf of this representative. I can assure you that he does not represent my district. Also, I went to a Magnet high school that was focused on math, science, and technology, so there is a significant number of Georgia residents that do not actually believe that evolution, the big bang (maybe The Big Bang Theory, but that's another topic), and genetics are not, in fact, tricks and lies of Satan.

Re:An Apology

[ericloewe]

Do your country a favor and be sure to vote idiots such as him out of office.

Re:An Apology

[JazzHarper]

[...] there is a significant number of Georgia residents that do not actually believe that evolution, the big bang [...] and genetics are not, in fact, tricks and lies of Satan.

Please check your double negative.

Re:An Apology

[Nidi62]

Hey, I'm from Georgia, give me a break :)

Re:An Apology

[NormAtHome]

Thank you very much for that.

May I suggest that you and other like minded people write some letters calling for his resignation from the committee on the basis that his religious beliefs are incompatible with his post on that committee. The governor of my own state has frequently made statements about teachers and teachers unions that make me sick and I have not hesitated to write my representatives and voice my displeasure; both my parents taught public school for their entire career's and I'm aware of the thanklessness of that job and how wrongly teachers are being painted and vilified by politicians.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Re:An Apology

[JazzHarper]

So am I.

Re:Post bigotry here

[thegarbz]

Then it wouldn't be a government.

Here's a radical thought, why not make Congressmen SMARTER. Yeah I said it. What a thought. The people who control the company being scientists, economists, and generally experts in their field rather than lawyers and priests.

Mind you the USA is not alone in this. The Australian finance minister never so much as took a highschool accounting class.

Re:Post bigotry here

[_8553454222834292266]

because this particular retard is in a position of power

Holy shit

[Type44Q]

Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) said that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell

You're an embrassment to yourself, Billy-Bob...

Re:Holy shit

[Un pobre guey]

No, he's an embarrassment to all of us in full view of the planet.

Intelligent Gestation

[flyhigher]

Apparently he believes in Intelligent Gestation.

https://sites.google.com/site/intelligentgestationinstitute/

----
True Creation dot info
http://truecreation.info/

better stay away

[ruir]

What I do know is that between the political environment, the sheer dumbification of americans and religious bigotry, I will choose other destinations for my holidays or visits.

Re:better stay away

[tehcyder]

What I do know is that between the political environment, the sheer dumbification of americans and religious bigotry, I will choose other destinations for my holidays or visits.

What's ironic is that Americans are great on an individual level to have a drink with. It's just when you get two or more of them together discussing anything remotely serious that problems start and your eyes tend to glaze over as one of them turns into a 1950s redneck..

Most creationist attack occurs on local level

[aepervius]

Dover was not the feds attempting to change the local education and impose a creationsit absed federal agenda. In fact you are much much more likely to have local crazy creationsit which can get their election and turn the local school to shit, than creationsit do that on the fedral level which would be much more visible and rise very quickly baricades. In fact the local student had to sue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Which is why I laugh when i see people speaking against feds in such matter. The least likely ton bring in on a creationist anti science agenda are the feds. Not the locals.

Re:Most creationist attack occurs on local level

[tmosley]

Because the Feds have done so well, which is why as they have gained more influence over education, US ranking in academic subjects have gone up and up and up.

Oh wait...

Empiricism trumps theory, bitches.

Crowd Sourcing...

[macbeth66]

So why is it that these mental midgets get elected?

Regardless of what district they come from, why not heavily fund the competition in these elections?

Give money to whomever is running against them.

Re:Crowd Sourcing...

[compro01]

There isn't anyone running against him.

Re:Post bigotry here

[modecx]

As for myself, I always figured it was likely a situation much like Iceland / Greenland. Give the more likable of the afterlives an ugly name, and most of the the assholes will do whatever they can to be sent to that other place. So, um...yeah, see ya in hell! *Wink wink.*

Re:Post bigotry here

[negRo_slim]

Yes because genocide and homosexuality could never help correrct population imbalances or have other effects less obvious for complex systems.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

How? Hasn't every society that's ever held an election proven their inability to consistently elect individuals worthy of power? Do you have the answer that's eluded the rest of mankind throughout history? (Even if you do, you're outvoted by everyone who doesn't. So it won't work.)

The only safe choice is to very strictly limit government power, so when unworthy people get elected, they can't hurt anyone.

Re:Religion is compatable with science and has a p

[ericloewe]

It's not about christianity, it's about subsets of christianity that not only reject science, but try to force their idiotic beliefs onto others.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

What's a "school system"? I thought a school was a teacher, teaching students something they want to learn. Anyone can hire a teacher to teach anything they want. This "school system" concept you're talking about seems to be a lot of extra nonsense that's only loosely related to teaching or learning. Why do we need to give up our freedom to have a "system" when teachers can teach and students can learn at least as well without it (and for a lot less money)?

Eeesh... It's genuinely frightening that you think that's a workable system...

Rep Broun is straight from the Pit of Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

People like him are straight from the pit of hell, he's as bad as the Taliban, espousing religion in order to gain or maintain power over the sheep that believe in him.
People of his ilk probably were big fans of the "Dark Ages" and would like to bring them back. Funny thing is the nature of religion has been debated for years this is how we came to have the various Christian Variations (Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopalian etc.) due to debates among scholars, this return to we take the bible literally
is a turn back.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

Are you purposely being obtuse on this? Do you have any concept of how education worked before the school "system" was established? This is complete non-sense of the worst kind as it would doom us to repeat the past where the vast majority of the country went uneducated and then comes all the sweeping problems associated with the uneducated masses such as massively increased crime rates across the board and vastly increased numbers of people in poverty.

A school is a lot more than just a teacher and students. This myopic attitude needs to go away as it is detrimental to the well being of a lot of children out there who's parents are either too busy or too stupid to teach their kids themselves.

Standards are well accepted on the Internet, I wonder why there is such resistance to the same things in the real world...

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[malkavian]

Except:
1) The Big Bang theory is something that arises from the study of physics. Saying it's "evil" says that the fundamentals of theoretical physics are evil. Of course physics will be affected if some idiot with a bit of power starts mouthing off that people studying the origins of the universe are evil. Some of those people are quite devout Christians.. Think it doesn't affect them and their state of mind, which affects their work? Technology arises due to knowledge of physics; they're very tightly interlinked. Railing against one part of it has knock on effects everywhere.

2) Saying evolution (which has been observed) is not important? Hello? There's no problem with having a design base? Well, hey, no problem with doing theology as long as you don't have anything to do with God I guess.. It's a part of Biology, and explains much about how things have arisen, the interactions, and why things have become the way they have.

No, America isn't anti science. The guy that's the subject of this is, quite frankly, and idiot. He's a member of a scientific board. What should happen is everyone calmly sits down and says "Interesting postulation. Lets see your working, experimental evidence and ensure it's repeatable in objective controlled environments. If it can't be proved, or disproved, it has no place in this environment, and you don't have the beginnings of an understanding of science, so please give up your post on this board, as you have no right to be here".

Too early for April Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just another reason why the world laughs at Americans.

You cannot read a map, you cannot spell correctly, you still think the world is flat, and that the universe revolves around the world.

America is like a child with a fire-cracker in one hand, and a loaded gun in the other - someone is going to get hurt!

Re:Post bigotry here

[flaming error]

Maybe society is better off with him in office than his previous job - an M.D. who believes evolution is a myth frightens me.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

Private school systems actually have to live up to certain standards set forth for accredidation. That is why they still teach science as science, many certainly do inject creationism as well.

The reason people think religious nuts would take over is stemmed from history when religious nuts took over. Take a look at the history of the education system and you will surely understand why people feel this way. It happened before, remove government and there is nothing stopping it from happening again.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[efitton]

Computer science and engineering are not science. Your ramblings about biology are incoherent. And then you just discount the take on physics.

Remember, Congress has the power of the purse. How do you think funding of the National Science Foundation will work with nuts like this on the Science Committee?

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

That would also restrict worthy people from making a difference thus defeating the whole purpose in the first place.

Please open your eyes and look

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Well, mankind has steered evolution of a lot of living things. Think of all the different kind of dogs, both the Great Dane and Yorkshire terrier descend from wolves. OK, the breeders provided environmental pressure so you could argue that it is unnatural selection, but the mechanism is proven. Same thing goes for cattle, poultry, roses, wheat,...

Re:Please open your eyes and look

[kanweg]

An important aspect in the defense of creationism is lying/making up facts that you could debunk yourself. Here we observe the AC doing it in action.

"Scientists have been breeding fruit flies for millions of generations of them"

The shortest generation time for fruit flies is 10 days (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster) That's 36 generations per year. If scientists have bred fruit flies for 100 years, that's 3600 generations. That is a bit short of "millions".

Now, in the real world, the population of a species is much, much larger than what scientists have in a lab. Only of some endangered species (tigers, panda's?) we may have more animals in captivity than in the real world. Despite the relatively small numbers, a large number of mutations has arisen nonetheless. With selection pressure, these could eventually lead to new species.

Not that any of the above will change your mind. Brainwashing from an early age: That's highly effective. You're probably proud of your delusion and will try to forget this confrontation with facts and logic as soon as possible so that it doesn't have any effect on your "thinking".

Bert

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

Funny that you seem to think that the Republicans actually want a smaller government. Next you'll be telling me the Democrats actually want fewer wars and less intrusion into people's lives.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between the "two" parties. If you want smaller government, you HAVE to vote third party. There is no other option, save to let the motherfucker burn.

Re:Post bigotry here

[malkavian]

Considering God telling people to kill other people usually gets them locked up.. I'm not enturely sure they shouldn't have..

Re:Post bigotry here

[Guy Harris]

Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?

Did the person to whom you're responding say he didn't want to let them think and say what they want? He may think they're idiots, but, well, if you don't want him to say he thinks they're idiots, my response to you is "Why not just mind your own business and let people think and say what they want?"

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

Funny how the "holy" wars continue under a Democratic president. Expand, even. Almost as if everything they say is a lie and they are all pursuing the same sinister motives, ie murdering brown people to steal their gold and maybe their oil, while breeding more resentment and war among those they are oppressing so they have a convenient external enemy that everyone can focus on, rather than realizing that their society is run by a bunch of inv=competent robot elders.

Looking at it from the wrong angle...

[gfxguy]

The problem here is that we allow people like that at all to dictate policy that the government has no business of being in. If you don't allow government to set policy on things it has no business being involved in, this would be a non-story.

Re:Looking at it from the wrong angle...

[EmagGeek]

The only person who can dictate anything in the US is the President, via Executive Orders directing policy in the various agencies that have been delegated omnipotent, unaccountable power by Congress.

One Congressman can't dictate squat, thankfully (notice I did not say "thank God," because there is no such thing as God).

Re:Looking at it from the wrong angle...

[crunchygranola]

If you don't allow government to set policy on things it has no business being involved in, this would be a non-story.

Ah the modern Republican strategy in a nutshell. When in power act like a bull in china shop*, wreck the machinery of government, the budget, the economy, then declare: "See! A strong government is a dangerous thing! Fix the damage we did? That's crazy talk! We must instead abolish government!"**

*Yes, I saw the Myth-Busters, this slanders bulls.

**Except for the having lots of guns: a vast military to bully the rest of world, and police to protect the property of the wealthy.

Re:Post bigotry here

[thegarbz]

I mentioned nothing about election. Elect your heads of state, but employ all their ministers and advisors based on there ability to effectively do their job.

It's a pipe dream :-(

Unfortunately one of the shining examples of a competent government is the PRC. Scientists and engineers all make up the top of the ruling party, sadly they have their own ideas about how the country should be run but to their credit they are doing an excellent job at it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

No, if you believe in an invisible being, then you believe in undetectable particles that only interact with our universe at the whim of some being that contains an infinite amount of energy, yet is totally undetectable.

I'm pretty sure that everyone that isn't insane is actually an atheist. Those that claim otherwise are a lot more likely to simply believe in belief, rather than actually believing. If they REALLY believed, they would last about twenty minutes in the modern world before they were arrested for stoning someone to death for wearing tassels in the wrong place or some other such insane law from the Bible. Of course, that is Christians. I don't know much about the consequences of true belief in other religions.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

But how would this education work? At some point you're going to tend towards a school again, ie put several students in with one teacher (to make it economically viable) and rotate the (many) students around a smaller number of specialised teachers. And somebody will have to run this, put it in a building with all the admin that is required of running a public building with hundreds of people in it. And then when your students emerge, they will want to have been through a balanced syllabus, which will have to be assessed somehow in a way that is recognised nationwide, so that will have to be standardised somehow, all of which sounds very much like something that a government should be doing.

Not to say that's a perfect system, but handwavingly pronouncing that the current way is bad (with no specifics other than vague fear-driven generalisations), and that anyone could do it better themselves doesn't convince me.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

A school is a lot more than just a teacher and students. This myopic attitude needs to go away as it is detrimental to the well being of a lot of children out there who's parents are either too busy or too stupid to teach their kids themselves.

So you think the purpose of a school is to limit parents' influence on their children. I think the purpose of a school should be learning and the parents should be free to decide more-or-less everything because they're rightfully free citizens, not government subjects.

Unfortunately, the people that actually control the government schools think the purpose is to maximize payroll. So we both lose, and the kids especially lose.

WTF, facepalm...

[PendragonUK]

USA, the world is laughing. you know this right? We read shit like this and facepalm. You are a laughing stock, you need to sort this shit out. Please I'm British and most of the world thing we are related or something. Cousin Jimmy has been seen playing with himself in public again. Unashamed, dick in hand and he dosn't know people are laughing at him. Pointing and passing judgement. Stop it! just stop...

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

In this particular case making a difference means ensuring that kids get a better education now than in the past, you know, improving the system. A system doesn't have to be perfect to be a good thing, as it evolves you move towards better and better education which then elevates society as educated people become more productive and advance the country further.

Freedom is not a purpose, it is a state of being. You are not free to make your choices if you are too uneducated to know what your choices are. So I would argue this removes freedom for people to pursue their own happiness. This is based on the assumption that without enforcable standards that the number of people educated will decline significantly.

Render unto Science things that are Science's

[DaKong]

If this fellow and those who share his views are sincere, then they ought return all those things which Science hath given them. That means they don't even get to live the life of the Amish, because they still use simple machines like pulleys and gears and those could clearly not exist without Science.

Let them return their cars, their modern fabrics, their TVs and computers and cell phones. Let them not travel upon paved roads, for those are marvels of modern Science and engineering. Let them have nothing save that which was constructed by hand using tools of no greater sophistication than bronze implements. Let them herd sheep and goats and spin wool and till the soil and walk everywhere they need to go, communicating by speech and clay tablets.

If they do all those things, then it's fine by me if they serve in Congress and make decisions about matters of Science.

But if they don't, then they can GTFO and take their brain damage with them.

Re:Post bigotry here

[mdenham]

I think I like that last option the best at this point. Sometimes the only way to get meaningful progress is to start over from the beginning.

New petition needed

[seven of five]

Broun can believe whatever he likes but he has no business being on the Science, Space and Tech committee. And how the heck did he get an MD?

Re:New petition needed

[__aaltlg1547]

He can say whatever he likes because he's running unopposed. The people of his district just have to take it, or write in the name of somebody who's not certifiably insane.

Re:New petition needed

[compro01]

And how the heck did he get an MD?

Presumably because he went to the university of Georgia.

Re:New petition needed

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The people he represents are probably just as fucking dumb

Re:New petition needed

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Same way he became a politician and a religious man... be being a con artist.

Re:New petition needed

[__aaltlg1547]

Likely. But I suggest that we modify the election system as follows: Keep the current nominee system, but automatically put a citizen from the district selected at random on it as well.

That way, nobody ever gets a by. You always face at least one other person on the ballot.

Re:New petition needed

[crunchygranola]

He got an MD 41 years ago from the Medical College of Georgia. Since then he has confined his practice exclusively to home visits in rural Georgia and thus escapes any scrutiny of his medical or scientific knowledge or skills from any outside party. All he has to do to retain his license is pay a fee every two years and take 20 hours of CME (continuing medical education) credits a year. Aside from taking those credits he has been running open-loop in terms of his contact with science and medicine for more than forty years.

The part of Georgia that elects him only elects Republicans in recent decades so Democrat bothered to enter a race against him, and no Republican challenged him in the primaries. So he ran completely unopposed this year, and is clearly feeling his oats - letting it all hang out there.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Since home-schools teach better than institutions, as shown by the relative performance of home-schooled vs. government-schooled children, it seems pretty clear that people can do it better themselves.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

Last I checked kids that go to school still see their parents only a daily basis. Parents are free influence their children all they like, that's why home schooling is allowed. There are no limitations, only minimum standards which I can't fathom how that would be a bad thing. School has a lot of purposes, everything from teaching specific subjects, to social skills.

Fortunately, people that control public school districts have to answer to a lot of people including the local community, this is why you have a local school board and supervisory roles that ensure individual schools maintain minimum standards. This means that local people get a say in how their kids are educated and federal standards ensure that they will be competitive with their peers from other regions.

Re:It at least proves...

[Guy Harris]

...that ne alien civilisations monitor the progress of earth. If there where any, this would be the point they'd nuke us from orbit...

...or broadcast videos of us as a reality show.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Phase Shifter]

What's missing? Not enough opportunity for graft? Not enough administrative overhead? No way to use politics to divide people? No union dues and slush funds? No way to censor "bad" ideas? No way to indoctrinate people into your belief system? No way to force bullies and their victims together? No one to tell the parents they're teaching their children wrong? No way for non-teachers to skim money out of the "system"? No one to fill out forms and do compliance paperwork?

...And no one to tell you your oncologist got his medical degree from Dr. Woo's School of Homeopathic Medicine.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Jafafa Hots]

You can't be bigoted against an idea.

All ideas and concepts are fair game for critique. The ones that fail are discarded.

If the holders of an idea declare that idea off-limits for critique, their idea automatically loses.

Re:Post bigotry here

[wbr1]

Standards are well accepted on the Internet...

Tell me sir, what flavors of html and css your browser support? Which versions it supporys correctly? What addations to those standards ithas made for its own use?

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

And what of those people who can't afford to hire an entire teacher for their child? I suppose they don't matter?

Re:All religion is mental illness

[Nidi62]

Religion isn't a mental illness, it's a coping mechanism. Look up terror management theory

Re:Post bigotry here

[roman_mir]

Porn? You should have started with porn. If it's a war they want, then it's a war they'll get!

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

And what of those people who can't afford to hire an entire teacher for their child? I suppose they don't matter?

They should just hire a principal. And a superintendent and a dozen assistant principals. And a few oversight boards. And janitors and nurses and lunch counter workers and secretaries and coaches and counselors and bus drivers and security guards and lawyers. And build a few big new buildings. That will make everything cheaper. Then they can use the savings to hire a teacher.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you met most Americans?

Anything left of Fascism is considered communism. And CERTAINLY any country with socialized medicine would not be welcomed with open arms :)

Although, I would like to think that Tim Horton's would be welcomed. Krispy Kreme and Dunkin Donuts, you've been put on notice.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Alain Williams]

I don't have a problem in teaching both evolution and creationism as theories -- which they both are -- as long as the teacher then discusses the objective evidence for these theories and how the predictions that they make have been supported by observations. A score sheet contrasting them (and others, eg lamarkism) can then be drawn up and used to decuce relative probabilities of correctness for each theory.

The teacher should then ask the kids to use the same methods in the religious indoctrination (sorry, I should have said: education) classes.

Re:Post bigotry here

[deathlyslow]

So vote the guy out of office. That is the way it's supposed to work. He says/does what his constituents wants or they get rid of him. Start petitions, online or IRL, protest at his offices, send letters/email, or make phone calls. Don't just complain about it do something about it. Until then you don't really have much to complain about. Get involved or be quiet.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

Ah, cool, thanks, you *are* full of bullshit. I wasn't sure.

Perhaps the system you dislike is incredibly inefficient, but since your alternative seems to be "hire a fulltime teacher" which only very few would be able to do (at a cost of what, about $40,000/year?) then you are NOT providing any sort of alternative.

Re:Religion is compatable with science and has a p

[couchslug]

There is every need to throw out religions, for they are all enemies of the search for truth, for which they substitute dogma. There is no need to "reconcile" Superstition with science.

Supply EVIDENCE and prove the Superstition!

Running unopposed...

[__aaltlg1547]

... and this is what we get. Any Congressman with a halfway credible opposition candidate wouldn't dare say something this stupid.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

Yes, there are standards that are more accepted than others. IPv4 and IPv6 are pretty well accepted standards though, same with FTP, TFTP. telnet, ssh, ntp, and a myriad of other standards out there. Standards are necessary to ensure minimum levels of compatibility, so while my browser may not support every standard it definitely supports the majority of scenarios much like our education standards are supposed to do for us. This means that a student from Kansas can work with a student from California or Poland as they all have a minimum base education to work from.

No need, he is a supporter of Mitt Romney

[G3ckoG33k]

who will have a hell talking his fellow GOPper out of this

Re:Post bigotry here

[ColdWetDog]

I think it would be a better idea if you had to pass some basic science (or whatever) test before you were able to chair a committee on science (or whatever).

But then I remember that congressmen are retarded people who got through life by pandering to the highest bidder

This clown is supposedly a Medical Doctor. So he had to at least be exposed to the some reasonably advanced concepts and memorize them. You've got to be pretty weird to go through all of that and denounce it as essentially heresy.

From his bio on his web site:

Representative Paul C. Broun, Jr. was elected in July of 2007 to serve the Tenth District of Georgia. Since his arrival in Congress, he has been appointed to the House Homeland Security Committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and currently serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Dr. Broun grew up in Athens, Georgia where he attended Athens High School and graduated from the University of Georgia in 1967 with a B.S. in Chemistry. In 1971, he received his Medical Doctor degree from the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. An internship at Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland, Oregon and a residency at University Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama followed.

He's probably just pandering to the crowd, but what a friggin slimeball.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

So we have to have this huge, oppressive, inefficient, incredibly expensive system that doesn't teach kids from poor neighborhoods much of anything because ... poor kids won't learn otherwise.

9000 years? Not 6000?

[roman_mir]

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.

- DAMN! Is the inflation so high today it even devalued the 6000 time years to mean 9000? I mean I remember seeing stories saying that it's 6000 just 1 year ago, so that's 50% increase in 1 freaking year, if this stuff compounds soon enough this creationist belief will catch up with the actual Earth's age and then shoot right past it.

In only 33 years with kind of inflation 6000 years will exceed 5.8 billion, which is 1.3 billion years more than the actual Earth's age!

Re:Post bigotry here

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If evolution and geology conflict with the Bible, so much the worse for the Bible. You'd best get busy re-interpreting it.

I believe the current apologist state of the art in most major religions is evolution happened but was "guided".

Re:Post bigotry here

[ATMAvatar]

Citation needed.

And no, the Bible is no more evidence of a creator than the Harry Potter books are evidence of magic.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rthille]

Expand? Iraq is done, and Afghanistan is being wound down. Slower than I'd like, faster than most Republicans say they'd do it if they were in charge, and on a timetable worked out with experts in the field.

Hell in a handbasket

[Arancaytar]

The country with more firepower than the rest of the world combined is governed by an apocalyptic cult. Does that strike anyone else as scary?

Of course he's on the SS&T committee

[Jeremy Erwin]

He believes that he needs to be on the front lines of the war against secular humanism.How else can he make a meaningful difference?

Re:Post bigotry here

[SuperMooCow]

A bottle of one liter of maple syrup has been sent to you, good sir.

Re:Post bigotry here

[SomeKDEUser]

More importantly, they could be a "misfiring" of some other, tangentially related (beneficial) characteristic. It is in fact very important to understand the biology underlining of those things to prevent them (the genocide, that is -- preventing homosexuality is a bizarre religious obsession)

Zealots need not apply

[Guru80]

Zealots need not apply, on either side of the fence. The major difference between an extremely scientific mind and an highly biblical one is that at least the scientist is willing to look at the evidence both contradictory and confirming. A religious, literal interpreter of the bible will never consider anything seriously that isn't written in his precious pages. Those on both sides that can't look at their own beliefs and understanding with a critical eye have no right to be in a position of authority.

Re:Post bigotry here

[efitton]

Citation?

And absolutely no confounding variables at all here.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

Since you have failed even to attempt some figures to back up your blanket assertions, let's try:
  - Rough cost of a teacher... say $40,000.
  - Median income for USA household $50,000.

So... out of possibility for the vast majority of households, ie all those below the median and a good number around and above the median. Only the top 20% of households earn more than $88,000, which is the sort of figure you'd need to hire someone to teach your precious darlings and deal with every other bill.

This "huge inefficient system" cannot possibly be anywhere near as much as homeschooling, since the cost of homeschooling is far more expensive than the majority of household's income. (Also, common sense, even with all those "unrequired" people, there are still far more students than staff)

Re:Post bigotry here

[bfandreas]

Given that the country was founded on then 500 year old whig ideas you'd think that a political process that'd be based on who prayed the loudest would be utterly rejected one would think that people like him would be utterly rejected as being fit for serving on governmental duties.
In plaing English that would translate to "Stop voting for idiots.".

If you ask types like him what family values are all about you'd be subjected to shameful stammer and be drenched in dribble.

...and on the tenth day He created dinosaurs which were a bit crap so fuck them.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

The PRC has arguably had a few good years. So have lots of other places ... before their leadership changed and everything fell apart. You can't show they've "consistently" made good choices in the long term for many more decades. Every other example from history indicates things will probably go badly for them eventually. There aren't many (any?) examples of permanent, stable societies.

Re:Newsflash: Religion != myth oriented Christiani

[Black Parrot]

It's entirely possible to have a well developed sense of the divine (without knowing exactly what it is and understanding that it may be entirely neurological) and be entirely free of Christianity, Islam, or any other fan club affiliation that requires an unproven belief in invisible friends, holy war, talking snakes, ritual blood drinking and/or body eating or additional taxation in the form of tithing.

Yes, but LSD is illegal.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

I bet this psycho wouldn't agree with the equally crazy statement:

You keep telling your self that. It won't make your eternal torture in hell go away. Don't claim you weren't warned. Allah is just. You will suffer for all your infinitely large sins against Allah*. You have broken Allah's commandments and stand guilty before Allah. The perversions you follow as morals won't help you when judgement day comes. How you followed some of them won't cover how you broke Allah's commandments. How Allah isn't following your "morals" isn't relevant as He is judging you, not the other way around. Crying about how we all are Allah's children won't help you. Screaming at me for violating the brotherhood of man by agreeing with Allah on what you deserve is pathetic. You are not His child and I am not your brother*. You are now closer to the day Allah will judge you than you were when you wrote your post. You are therefore closer to Hell*.

* Unless He will make you repent and give you saving faith in how Mohammed payed for your sins in the desert. In that case your sins are payed, Allah has adopted you and heaven awaits. If He give you faith please remember that He had no obligation to do so or to refrain from doing . You are in no position to claim He saved you because of how much better you are than the rest or to complain how He hasn't saved others.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

Theocrat insists a person who dislikes theocrats should mind their own business.

You Christaliban are so deranged it's a wonder you can type.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

No, let's not destroy the power of the people to protect us from each other in order to create a power vacuum into which theocrats and warlords always inevitably move. Libertarianism is your religion. Let's not leave the frying pan for the fire.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

You don't understand that "small enough that theocratic politicians don't matter" is no different from "nonexistent".

Re:It at least proves...

[Black Parrot]

...that ne alien civilisations monitor the progress of earth. If there where any, this would be the point they'd nuke us from orbit...

Hopefully not, but they certainly won't be inviting us to join the Federation anytime soon.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

No, it's the scrambling of public education that fails to teach enough critical thinking, plus the fetishization of churches that gives them respect and budget outweigh whatever critical thinking we do have. Swamped by a corporate mass media keeping that mismatch in place, exploiting it for power perpetuation and short term capitalist harvesting.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

Evidently your school system failed to teach you even the most basic thinking skills.

Dissent is healthy

[sonoronos]

To understand his phrase about "straight from hell" one must understand his theological viewpoint.

Unless he was the sole member on the committee, I don't see any of what he said as problematic. Dissent is healthy. This is a democracy, and he as well as anyone else has the ability to speak their mind.

As a scientist myself, I don't take offense at his viewpoint, though his choice of phrasing is very politically incorrect.

Re:Dissent is healthy

[tehcyder]

Unless he was the sole member on the committee, I don't see any of what he said as problematic. Dissent is healthy. This is a democracy, and he as well as anyone else has the ability to speak their mind.

If an elected official exercised his right to free speech by publishing a Mel Gibson style anti-semitic rant, or by declaring he was the second coming of Christ the lizard King and could therefore legitimately rape eight year old human children, he would hopefully be made to resign. Same for what this arse-bogey said. It is unacceptable coming from someone with a position of power and authority.

You can be as much of a mentalist as you want at home alone with your fishfingers, just don't expect to get away with it in public.

Re:Post bigotry here

[efitton]

No he doesn't get the economies of scale. He was taught at home.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Black Parrot]

I don't have a problem in teaching both evolution and creationism as theories -- which they both are

I disagree with your claim that creationism is a theory. A theory is a coherent body of material that lets us comprehend something: atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, theory of evolution, etc. Creationism, OTOH, never seems to rise above a random collection of claims that "evolution couldn't have done that".

I've seen individual creationists making mutually contradictory claims. The only coherency to creationism is that if a claim gives the illusion of refuting the possibility of evolution, it's in. It doesn't make the slightest attempt to *explain* anything; it just tries to refute anything that contradicts the Sacred Doctrine.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Darinbob]

He's lying. The earth is only 6000 years old. He must have an ulterior pro-science reason for spreading the belief that the earth is 9000 years old.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

Stats? And proof they're not self-selecting.

Re:Post bigotry here

[amiga3D]

I can't speak for sure but I'd bet there wont be many Congresscritters from either party in Heaven. Of course anyone can be forgiven, but then, they have to confess and repent.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Mr2001]

There is NO DIFFERENCE between the "two" parties.

Except, you know, when it comes to issues like health care, reproductive rights, or Social Security.

Anyone who says there's no difference between the two parties is either (1) totally uninformed, (2) obsessed with fringe issues and apathetic about everything that the rest of us care about, or (3) trying to convince you to stay out of the election so their vote will count more.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Doc Ruby]

No, we can improve the system. But your anarchist system where only the richest get education and the opportunities it opens failed for centuries, millennia, to serve anyone but the rich. And it didn't serve them that well either, compared to how well they're served now.

Your arguments are all simply that since our public education system has problems, we should delete it entirely - in favor of a intolerable disaster proven worse for centuries. It's obvious why you hate school: yours failed to teach you to think.

The big question

[meerling]

How in the hell did an anti-science cretin get a spot in the bully pulpit for science in this country?
For that matter, how do we get him fired for incompetence and inability to perform the duties of the position?

Re:The big question

[Brad1138]

If this gets into the mainstream media, I would assume he will "clarify" his statement with some twisted way of trying to not make himself look like a buffoon.

Re:Post bigotry here

[thaylin]

He is so just he mass murders innocents!!!!

Re:Post bigotry here

[narcc]

The earth is 6016 years old -- what are you trying to hide?

Re:Post bigotry here

[myowntrueself]

I can understand the American education system wanting to limit the things that kids learn.

The objective is so that the present generation can rest assured that their kids will not surpass them. You see they are terrified that one day their children will be better than them and show them up to be weak and idiotic.

It comes directly from their religion. It works like this:

In Christianity, Judaism and Islam the 'God' created the human race. This 'God' created the human race to be fundamentally flawed; human beings would NEVER be equal to or greater than their creator. The 'God' of these religions created the human race to be perpetually inferior. 'He' did NOT want to end up like the Titans of Greek mythology; defeated by and ousted by 'His' creations. So 'He' made Man, forever inferior to 'Him', weak, kept in its place, forever fearing and submissive to the will of their 'God'.

In *my* religion it doesn't work like this; my gods created the human race SO THAT one day they would come to fear us; so that one day we might defeat and dethrone them. My gods created us, their 'children', because they were trying to create something greater than themselves, not lesser.

So as the American Christians want their children to be forever inferior to them, I want my children to one day surpass me. I want my children to terrify me with their strength and boldness. I want my children to make me look like a foolish, uneducated idiot, to show me up and make me look bad. And one day my descendants will do the same for the gods themselves.

And the human race of that age will be to us today as we are to the animals.

That is what MY gods created us FOR. Not to be inferior beings.

And that is why the Christians running things in America want the very opposite and why they are fucking their education system so badly. Their 'God' sets their example; as 'He' keeps 'His' children in their place and they will keep their children subdued, submissive, fearing and dull.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Indras]

In plaing (sic) English that would translate to "Stop voting for idiots.".

But that's all that is on the ballot!

Rome, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US got where it is despite every President, Supreme Court Justice, and Congressman (well, nearly all) being religious, in some degree or another.

Yes indeed... a short-lived experiment at a democratic republic that (a) never managed to even come close to adhering to its own constitutional authorizations, veering further and further from them by the day, and (b) is currently only able to operate courtesy of loans from other countries, and (c) is now possessed of an entirely corrupt political and legal framework, starting at the bottom (legislation) and working right up into all the various human factors (law enforcement, judges, lawyers, politicians and the sundry minions of all the foregoing.)

I agree: Being religious doesn't make you a useless piece of shit. Just a critical-thinking challenged human being. Neither uncommon or particularly reprehensible. But people being religious does appear to have had a great influence on making our government a useless piece of shit. I know, correlation is no guarantee of causation, but on the other hand, we rarely find massive, consistent and repeatable effect without significant correlation, do we now?

Re:Rome, then?

[Kjella]

Yes indeed... a short-lived experiment at a democratic republic that (a) never managed to even come close to adhering to its own constitutional authorizations, veering further and further from them by the day, and (b) is currently only able to operate courtesy of loans from other countries, and (c) is now possessed of an entirely corrupt political and legal framework, starting at the bottom (legislation) and working right up into all the various human factors (law enforcement, judges, lawyers, politicians and the sundry minions of all the foregoing.)

You mean a government that set lofty ideals and don't quite live up to them? Shocker. If I had free choice of country to live in the US wouldn't be at the top of my list, but they wouldn't be all that bad either. Sure they're young compared to my country but that's because for a thousand years Norway has mostly been populated by Norwegians, most states and empires that have mixed completely different ethnicities, religions and cultures have ripped themselves apart in far less than two hundred and then some years. It's not yet 50 years since MLK had to march on Washington and deliver his "I have a dream" speech and now there's a black guy holding the presidency. Still waiting of course for a woman, gay or Muslim but it's not supposed to be a minority freak show either, just if they happen to be the one best qualified.

Besides, the US is a big country - it's not like you have to go live in the Bible Belt, I think California or New York would be just fine. Just as economically fucked though, but I think semi-secular Europe is having the same kind of debt crisis and we still haven't had a collapse like Argentina or Zimbabwe. Wanting to spend more than you have is very little related to religion or even corruption, it's a people and their politicians deciding to live off credit card debt. Sweet for a while, until it's not. And despite all the battering the constitution is taking, well at least that means there's a constitution still resisting the government. You'd be surprised in how many other countries your rights go down without a fight...

Re:Rome, then?

[thrich81]

The original poster was AC but appears to be American -- so, if it is really as bad a you say then emigrate, there are about 10^9 people in the world who would like to take your place, or try voting for at least the lesser of evils. And for the foreigners who decry American influence around the world -- get off your butts and create a counterweight to American power -- I'm talking to you, Europeans; Europe is richer and more populous than the US -- get together, get your affairs in order, and get busy, instead of whining. If you don't like the status quo there are paths to change, crying about it isn't one of them.

Re:Rome, then?

[CodeHxr]

Cthulhu for President, 2012!

Why vote for the lesser evil?

The Christian world is stuffed to the gills

[Burz]

It is fat (and wasteful) and much of that excess comes straight from Muslim countries that have been attacked repeatedly on the flimsiest pretexts (i.e. it is stolen).

Take away that gluttonous windfall and there is no evidence that the 'nice' Christian teachings would prevent them from reverting to savagery that made Muslim exploits look like a Teletubbies episode.

This is why I think your whole "But we're superior" post is a load of BS. Christian morality only looks passable from inside its own insular navel-gazing.

 

Science can tell you exactly how to totally enslave and violate every freedom people have, kill huge numbers of people and so on. All of this is perfectly in line with "science". science just tells you whats possible. It does not tell you whats right and wrong.

Actually, evolution increasingly helps explain why people gravitate toward a sense of morality. But in the process it shows us things that put certain aspects of religion in a negative light: Christianity would be no exception.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jamstar7]

Canada would be able to just walk in and take what states it wanted ..... and most would welcome them with open arms, or even go so far as to kill those that would stop them, at least after a few years.

I for one welcome our new Canadian overlords

A bottle of one liter of maple syrup has been sent to you, good sir.

If I demand that Harper stay home in Canada when the Royal Canadian Moose Mounties come marching over The Line, can I get 2 liters of maple syrup? That shit is worth more than heroin!!!

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Your arguments are all simply that since our public education system has problems, we should delete it entirely...

And rebuild it piece by piece, adding back only the things that serve the parents and help the students learn, leaving out everything else about "the system" that only serves "the system". So we end up with schools that primarily teach and students that primarily learn instead of a "system" that's primarily about politics and payroll.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jamstar7]

The only safe choice is to very strictly limit government power, so when unworthy people get elected, they can't hurt anyone.

Great idea. The problem, though, throughout history, has been that governments are like any other organism. They try to survive, expand, reproduce, and so forth. A government's 'reproduction' is its bureacracy. Once it starts growing, the end is in sight. Just ask the Confucian Chinese of the Old Empire. Ghenghis Khan conquered China alright, but within three generations, his grandson, Kublai Khan, had been assimulated, and the bureaucracy didn't even hiccup. Ghenghis couldn't rule China without them. Same thing as the Romans. The Senate of the Republic of Rome got discredited, and the Caesars moved in to become Emperors. Then the whole damned family started coming off the rails (see Caligula for an example). While the 'royal family' was busy carving each other up (when they weren't poisoning each other), the bureaucrats kept the Empire more or less viable. And let's not forget the United States. The Constitution was a masterpiece to restrain the federal government, but the government itself started almost from the beginning to get bigger, more powerful, more intrusive.

History tells us that no government is immune, and eventually, they all fall. Unfortunately, we haven't learned enough to do without one yet.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Brad1138]

Yawn.....
Your belief in a sky magician has zero affect on me.

I am sorry but...

[Brad1138]

How does anyone in 2012 believe this crap?

Re:I am sorry but...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Thats like saying how in the hell in 2012, cant people replace their own hard disks?

I mean some people are just too dumb to put 2 and 2 together.

USAsians you have a problem

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

You know the result: This.

So you're a democracy with freedom of speech etc. etc. so where are your mass-media communicators that shrivel this ball of idiocy into a cinder? You may have a few obstreperous icons but that's not the same thing as a must-watch 'spitting image' on every week to lampoon the whole lot of them.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

No, I went to public school. And I remember it. It was not worth the time they took from me -- time I'll never get back. I learned about the pointless mediocrity and waste and bureaucracy of institutional government schools firsthand.

I envy the kids I knew who were taught at home. Their teachers cared about them.

And yeah, you can save money with economies of scale. But then, if you're a government school, you can spend your savings 100 times over on nonsense that doesn't help anyone learn anything.

heres a link

[nimbius]

to the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge64kMFoQEo

in case you're like me wondering what species of slime mold a "Paul Broun" is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Broun#Controversies

unfortunately i have not found a web page to explain how this mouth-breathing brain-dead no-talent ass-clown continues to cash a government paycheck. I've been to Atlanta, and its people are quite intelligent, unfortunately theyre outnumbered by the hicks in the sticks straddling mobility scooters and sucking down big macs as usual.

Re:heres a link

[ZosX]

What a typical politician. Apologizing and then claiming it wasn't an apology. He really needs to get the doublespeak thing down a bit better.

Re:heres a link

[crunchygranola]

...in case you're like me wondering what species of slime mold a "Paul Broun" is...

Please. Slime molds exhibit altruistic behavior, with the amoebae sacrificing themselves for the good of the colony and species when erecting a fruiting body. Don't slander the slime mold.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Darinbob]

I'm just saying what I was taught 16 years ago.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Brad1138]

Don't say that about "most Americans". That is the case with a loud portion of right wing/republicans. Much less than 1/2 of all Americans. As Democrat, I am sick and tired of the republican line, "If you don't agree with us, your a socialist/communist".

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

I fear either you or someone reading that drivel might actually believe it, so I'll feed the troll:

The purpose of a system is the to make results less the result of chance and fortunate circumstances and more predictable.

Sure, a school system might actually diminish the teaching between the genius teacher and the bright kid. But they are each 1% of the teacher resp. school kid population and the chance that they actually meet is somewhere around one in a thousand. For the other 999 teachers and kids, the system helps. It also makes sure that when I hire you after you've completed school, I can make a few reasonable assumptions, like that you'll be able to read and do some basic arithmetics. Without an evil, horrible, oppressive system, you might have met a teacher who thinks all wisdom is in the arts, and all you can read is notes and all you can add is colours.

As far as the public trolling (that some ignorant observers call the republican campaign speeches) goes, it is fascinating how pretty much everything they dislike can, if you understand a tiny bit about history, be strongly correlated with culture, civilization, improved living standards, higher life expectancy and lots of other things that we generally consider good things.

If they are serious, you should shoot them all. Before innocent people start believing this shit and the USA enters history as yet another great power that mysteriously just fell apart and entered a long dark age before being forgotten by everyone but historians.

And what if.....

[jmd]

Some sort of God created the Big Bang.. evolution etc etc. There is soooooo much we don't know.

However, one thing I do know is............... I am sure this guy would not get my vote if I lived in Georgia.

One Congressional Candidate asked that already

[fishdan]

Full disclosure -- it's me
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fishman-For-Congress/238525136213826?sk=wall&filter=12

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

I know. It never works out. I'm trying to convince people to stop empowering the destroyers.

But they're all too convinced that they know the answers about how their neighbors should live their lives. They want to empower the government to force "the right" choices.

Because centralizing power can never go wrong if you're really, really sure of yourself and you always elect the right leaders and always make the right choices. Or something. It'll all work out because we are different -- better -- than everyone else in history who tried something similar. Everyone else in history was just stupid, like our neighbors who need us to tell them how to live their lives.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Todd Knarr]

The problem is that Creationism is a discredited theory: it fails to match so much observed evidence, and fails to predict so many things we've found, that there's no longer any serious possibility that it might be correct. As a scientific theory, it should be chucked out into the dumpster to join Ptolomey's theory of celestial mechanics, phlogiston and a host of other discredited theories. It doesn't even have saving grace of eg. Newtonian mechanics: known to be incorrect, but a sufficiently close approximation for everyday use and much simpler to deal with than the more accurate theories.

Re:Post bigotry here

[pwizard2]

You keep telling your self that. It won't make your eternal torture in hell go away. Don't claim you weren't warned. God is just. You will suffer for all your infinitely large sins against Him*. You have broken His commandments and stand guilty before Him. The perversions you follow as morals won't help you when judgement day comes. How you followed some of them won't cover how you broke Gods commandments. How God isn't following your "morals" isn't relevant as He is judging you, not the other way around. Crying about how we all are His children won't help you. Screaming at me for violating the brotherhood of man by agreeing with God on what you deserve is pathetic. You are not His child and I am not your brother*. You are now closer to the day God will judge you than you were when you wrote your post. You are therefore closer to Hell*.

I actually read the Bible front to back and saw what kind of a psycho asshole your god really is. If it truly exists, (doubtful) it has no right to judge anyone. Your god embodies malice to a degree that no human could ever hope to reach. Biblegod is clearly the product of a harsh, primitive, barbaric culture and it definitely shows.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Shouldn't the people taking the money by force and herding everyone into institutions against their will be the ones who have to prove it's justified? Since when do I need stats to support the idea of leaving innocent people alone?

Re:Religion is compatable with science and has a p

[Stirling Newberry]

Because Christians are very bad at policing their own.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jamstar7]

Scientists have been incorrect and in some instances published fraudulent research studies yet you claim those whom believe in God lack intelligence, mental strength, or integrity? There is a fine balance but there are no perfect human beings. Even the natural world gets things "wrong" sometimes; (e.g.) homosexual behaviour and genocidal behaviour amongst animals other than homo sapiens.

The difference is, in science, they have these things called 'peer review' and 'empirical evidence'. You can claim to have discovered anything you want, but you better be ready to back it up with evidence, and show how you got there. Your experiments must be reproducable. Your results and your methods must be able to be tested as well. And your claims can (and damned well should) change under new evidence and examination. Anything else isn't science, it's philosophy.

Most people who believe in God belong to an organised religion of some stripe or other. Most of those religions get downright testy at any 'new thinking' that comes down the pike. For instance, that little disgreement the Pope at that time had with Galileo. Or the insistance by radically fundamentalist Muslims that the Koran is the end-all and be-all of all human knowledge and thus no further books need be written that directly caused the world of Islam to fall from the pinacle of advanced human civilisation welcoming scientific freedom of thought to its current 'Not Invented Here' notions, notions that are closely followed by the extreme fudamentalist Christians. You can claim that God told you all kinds of things, like, gays are immoral and must be killed, to scientists are the Anti-$MESSIAH and must be killed, to 'God told me to run for President so you must elect me in this one last final election', to 'science itself is evil and must not be taught', and by the unwritten 'rules' of the 'God-game', nobody is allowed to disagree with you, no evidence, peer review, nothing. And your followers must follow your teachings no matter what, with no input on anything. Several of these God-based religions demand the death of people who do not believe the same things as those who are 'spoken to by God'.

So, is there a difference between people of science and people of fundamentalist religions? I think so. Your mileage may vary.

Re:That's TRULY insane

[thelexx]

My take is that he fully understands evolution and rejects it as a sophisticated ploy by Satan to trick us. I've met someone with this exact philosophy before and there was no reasoning with them on it. He too was an otherwise extremely intelligent person. Folks of that ilk have an impenetrable fall-back position from 'Satan did it' - it must be that God is testing us. I quickly realized that the only winning move was not to play.

Seems relevant somehow to also mention the really smart and rather wealthy guy who once told me that environmentalism was a waste of time because Jesus was going to come before things fall apart. How I wish I was making that up.

Pluralism

[JRR006]

When it comes to public office, what we need to guard against is not the religious, or atheists, or whatever other philosophy someone might follow. What we need to guard against are people who are utterly unwilling and incapable of living in a pluralistic society. People who are dogmatic whether from fear, lacking all empathy, lacking the ability to imagine themselves in someone else's shoes, and/or an aggrandized persecution complex and self-righteousness. Putting this type of person in a position of power is incompatible with a peaceful, pluralistic, free, and democratic society.

Re:Pluralism

[riverat1]

Amen brother (and I say that as an agnostic who leans atheist).

Re:Post bigotry here

[jamstar7]

There is an abundance of evidence in a creator. But of course evidence does not equate to proof.

What evidence? Where can I find this evidence? Has it been peer-reviewed? Tested for falibility?

Re:Post bigotry here

[riverat1]

How many home school situations have a class size as big as even 5? I guarantee if you gave a public school teacher a class size of 5 they would do a whole lot better too.

Re:Post bigotry here

[pwizard2]

Doesn't matter. If Biblegod is so far "above us", then its morals should be a superior version of what civilized people know to be right/wrong. However, that is not the case. Rather, it is quite the opposite: a rational purpose would condemn god's atrocious behavior.

Good resources for people to read:

http://www.evilbible.com/
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Re:Almost all elected lawyers have this problem.

[compro01]

This nut isn't a lawyer. He's a doctor. A medical doctor.

How he managed to obtain an MD whilst holding these kinds of insane ideas is beyond me.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[mooingyak]

The Big Bang theory is something that arises from the study of physics. Saying it's "evil" says that the fundamentals of theoretical physics are evil.

I assume the thought process goes something like this:

First, the initial assumption: the Bible tells us that the Earth is young (6k years, 9k years, even 50k years, it doesn't make much difference for Evolution or Big Bang)
Once you take that as true, the rest falls into place fairly logically. Since you *know* the Earth is young, there *can't* be evidence contrary to this. This means anyone who observes anything else is at best mistaken. One or two people could conceivably make an innocent mistake like that. Thousands of people though? It could only be a conspiracy. And who would be the source of this conspiracy? Satan, obviously. Therefore, Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are "Lies straight from the pit of hell."

Of course, the starting point is a crock of shit, but if you take it as a given, the rest is actually logical.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[luis_a_espinal]

The problem is that Creationism is a discredited theory

It was never much of a theory to begin with.

Re:Post bigotry here

[pwizard2]

Argh, I meant to say a rational *person* would condemn god's atrocious behavior.

What does he have against Kaley Cuoco?

[Qubit]

Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) said that evolution, embryology and The Big Bang Theory are 'lies straight from the pit of hell'

If he doesn't like The Big Bang Theory, CBS tells me that he can see 2.5 Men afterwards, or the Veep Debates after that. ...or does he think that Vice Presidents are all full of lies straight from the pit of hell, too?

Re:What does he have against Kaley Cuoco?

[Jason Levine]

Considering what comes out of some politicians mouths, that last bit might be true.

Exhibit A: Rep. Paul Broun.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jammer170]

Gee, you mean people may actually need to do their own research into the person who going to treating them? I mean, how did humans ever survive without the government to tell them things?

Re:Post bigotry here

[budgenator]

At least the Canadians have better beer than most of our would be conquerors, but alas I fear the Canadians are too smart to fall into that trap; and would just seal off their boarders.

God's Word and God's World

[10101001 10101001]

"God’s word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church’s website. "I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

So, God's word is true. But, all that evolution, embryology, and Big Bang theory that results from a careful study of God's world? Oh, that's all lies. Oh, and why did God create this amazing world? Oh, to create lies that teach the understanding that one not need a savior. Sounds like an enactment of Job all over again. You know the funny thing about the story of Job? It's not that Job personally suffers or how its done all on the behest of Satan to "prove" Job's inherent faithfulness or how it all boils down to a "test" and "don't question the acts of God because you didn't make the universe". It's how God kills Job's kids then in the end proceeds to produce new kids for him as if they're magically some sort of replacement. In other words, not only is God a dick to the most pious for the most dubious of reasons, but "God's word" makes it very clear that as a rule you *are* a number and trivially replaceable. Is it any wonder people in power, who view themselves as special, would be so willing to embrace "God's word"? It must make it easier for them to sleep at night. But, then, that sort of presumes they had any sort of empathy in the first place that needed to be quieted somehow.

I don't know...

[mark_reh]

If I were an intelligent person who, for whatever reason, leaned toward the GOP point of view, I would have to rethink my position. The parade of idiots they presented as potential presidential candidates early in the campaign, dopes like this guy Broun, etc., would make me ashamed to call myself a republican. In fact, I would be deeply insulted that the party I support would present these sorts of people as serious presidential contenders. Apparently the GOP doesn't want anyone with any brains at all.

The problem for the rest of us is that there are many more stupid people in the US than smart or even just reasonable people. The GOP knows this and bends over backwards to appeal to the dopes. I'm beginning to think that democracy, at least as practiced in the US, is grossly over-rated.

Re:Post bigotry here

[real gumby]

But your hell would be to be forced to listen to people like him!

His heaven would presumably being able to perpetually proselytise to people like you!

Re:Post bigotry here

[khallow]

And then when your students emerge, they will want to have been through a balanced syllabus, which will have to be assessed somehow in a way that is recognised nationwide, so that will have to be standardised somehow, all of which sounds very much like something that a government should be doing.

No. Private non-profits do a good enough job here. For example, college accreditation is mostly a private affair, even for public universities. The US Department of Education does have the authority to recognize accrediting agencies, but it doesn't have the authority to be one. And that has worked out just fine for the US.

I find it remarkable how little people understand of such things to think that so many things can only be fixed by government action.

Re:It's worth remembering some people think that w

[Seumas]

Actually, it's something like 50% of the American population that believes that way. *sigh*

And if people need an example, here's a direct copy and paste of a comment left by some mouth-breather in response to the linked article about this guy:

If the earth is billions of years old, due to the magnetic pull the moon would have been almost on top of the earth during the time of dinosaurs. Additionally, DNA loses pieces and becomes weaker with time it does not develope and created new pieces. Carbon dating of a mammoth was sent to two different labs and each lab dated the mammoth 20-30,000 years apart (so much for carbon dating). Are you aware there are fosils of trees standing up and going between the multiple layers of earth. How could a tree transend millions of years of layers and grow straight through the layers. The answer if GLOBAL FLOOD and the layers aren't as old as evolutionists believe. I agree you can see micro evolution within the same species but saying that suddenly an amebia grew a respiratory system, circulatory system, nervous system and muscularskeletal system all at the same point do be able to reproduce it very, very far fetched. By the way if big bang was true, where did the energy come from to creat the bang? GOD IS THE ANSWER.

Ah, those Americans

[ukoda]

When I read stories like this one it makes me glad I'm not an American, and then I remember that America dictates the law for many contries, such as my own. Bugger :-(

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

Law enforcement is largely a state and local issue, not a federal government issue. Army is one of those small government ideas that are actually enshrined in the Constitution. Anti-monopoly laws, well we have seen how well those have worked out in the recent past. Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce and could extend state laws beyond borders to deal with monopolies though.

AS for the Canadian overlords, didn't something like that already happen when we had almost no standing army once? Or am I think of some Hollywood movie called 1812? If I was, it was a good one, they invaded Washington DC and captured the White House while most people weren't paying attention.

He doesn't know what evolution is

[Livius]

Every single time, the evolution deniers make me laugh with this. They can't even get right what they are denying - climate change deniers and Holocaust deniers aren't that far wrong.

'Evolution' is the short-hand name for Darwin's theory, which is actually the Evolution of species by natural selection. Evolution is an observation. Natural selection is a mathematical principle. The theory was the part about linking the two.

So whether you accept the theory or not, evolution is the part that is entirely factual.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Marksolo]

To think Canada's biggest problem recently was someone stole our strategic reserve of maple syrup, it puts things in perspective. Thank the mounties we got it back!

Re:Post bigotry here

[Lord Kano]

Arabic speaking Christians say Allah when referring to the father portion of the Christian Holy Trinity.

LK

A comparison

[uvajed_ekil]

Sounds like the time I was elected to the municipal school board and then tried to abolish the local public schools because they were worthless and did not provide anything recognizable as an education. That didn't go over so well for me, and nor should this for him either. The difference: I had a point, and he is a crackpot pushing an extremist agenda.

Re:A comparison

[bytesex]

You must be really popular.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Ledgem]

Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort. Perhaps a psychiatric condition, or perhaps a brain tumor that is altering his personality and beliefs. Granted, being a physician doesn't automatically make someone well-versed in science... but consider that he's 66 years old. That's not exactly "old" by today's standards, but not so young that those concerns would be invalid. I suppose we could figure it out by looking at his track record and history of statements.

Re:Post bigotry here

[riverat1]

You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it...

To someone whose only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you are consciously seeking evidence of God in nature chances are you are going to convince yourself you've found it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*.

Yeah, the flying spaghetti monster exists because... well, how else did my house get here!? See... evidence! I can't think of another answer; therefore, flying spaghetti monster.

Re:Post bigotry here

[englishknnigits]

From a pedantic, technical standpoint you are correct. Congress would have to be nonexistent for U.S. Congressmen to not matter at all. However, Kohath clearly wasn't talking about them not mattering at all. He was saying what they think about these types of issues wouldn't matter at all. Yes, it was implied and not explicitly stated. Protecting the physical security of our country and its people is a totally separate function from determining what is in a schools curriculum and deciding where to put research dollars (excluding military related R&D obviously, it appears we must spell everything out though).

I suppose I could be giving Kohath too much credit but I don't see how he could have meant it any other way.

Re:Religion is compatable with science and has a p

[grantspassalan]

This is one of the best replies in this whole thread. If I had mod points I would give you an insightful AND an informative. One thing I would point out though is that without God as an outside reference point, all morality and ethics are only opinions of you, me or other people. As a society, we mostly agree for example, that it is wrong to lie, steal or murder. However, in some other society all or some of these things might not be considered wrong. After all, the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, whom they did not consider to be human. Even in our society murder is not considered wrong by many, if it is done to unborn children, who are also considered by many to be nonhuman, but merely a piece of biological tissue.

Like you wrote, science itself is morally neutral. It does not consider ethics or right and wrong. Islam is indeed a greater threat to scientific progress. Almost all early scientists, those who laid the foundations of all of our science, were mostly Christians. These people believed in an intelligent, supremely powerful and wise God, who created an orderly universe following set laws that could be studied. Great institutions of learning, such as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Duke and many others were founded because of Christianity and on Christian principles.

All science is the study of nature, that is of God's creation. Scientists explore HOW this creation works, but only the Creator himself can tell us WHY he has chosen to create the universe and us in it. I believe that he has indeed chosen to answer this question in a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of over 1500 years. It has become known to us as the Bible.

this post should be required reading

[circletimessquare]

for life

it never works that way

[circletimessquare]

people who believe stupid things are often also people who have an obsessive need to impose, by force, belief in those stupid things on others

which pretty much explains a lot of the history of religion

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

I think his point was more to the system then a school.

The national government wasn't involved in schooling until the national defense education act in 1957 or so. It standardized what schools should be teaching. We even created a national assessment program shortly after that is still around today. Our 17 year old student test about the same as they did in 1978 BTW. Jimmy carter signed the department of education into law the year after with the intent of the usde improving scores and the quality of education but only managing to maintain the status quot for the most part.

The system can be fixed, but i doubt most of us would miss it if it disappeared. I doubt if much would change.

Maybe Christianity, but the rest?

[Ledgem]

Christianity seems to center around the idea of who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, but that's not the case with Judaism. (I can't speak for Islam.) It's true that "the wrath of God" is detailed in the Jewish texts, but I've never heard it mentioned as a means to frighten people. If you're Jewish, the interpretation is one of history; that God made a contract with the Jewish people, then did these things to save them from enslavement. Sure, the Jewish people screw up and incur some of God's wrath, but it's nothing like suffering in hell for all eternity. The interpretation I learned was that God's feats represented God fulfilling His part of the contract, and now it's our turn to fulfill our part. There's no threat implied in any of that, it's just stated to show that something was done for you (through your ancestors), and now you have a responsibility to uphold.

Another big difference between Judaism and Christianity is in personal responsibility, and the purpose of life. Christianity seems to dictate that we're all powerless vessels floating on a sea dominated by currents of good and evil. Satan lures you one way, but you need to believe to be saved and reach heaven. The purpose of life is simply to find that belief and stick with it, avoiding the temptations of Satan. By comparison, Judaism focuses on more "practical" things. According to some texts, God left Earth to Man; that is, we're tasked with turning Earth into a paradise. Satan exists in Judaism, but he isn't a source of evil. Rather, the belief is that when you die, your soul goes before a "spiritual court," where Satan is the prosecutor who points out all of the evils that you committed. Basically, while Christianity views evil as some external force, Judaism recognizes that evil can come from within, and claims that everyone should take responsibility for it themselves.

Honestly, it all sounds pretty silly if interpreted in a literal manner. Being Jewish (although "spiritual but not religious") I am obviously biased, but one of the things that I really appreciate about Judaism is that it seems designed to be a guideline to living and finding meaning in life. The focus is on being a better person, improving the world around you, appreciating and enjoying your life. If you can do all of that without reading the Bible or praying to God, wonderful! Formal religion may not recognize you for it, but there's a line in the Bible which claims that you would be considered Jewish simply for that. This is one reason (among others) why you don't see Jews going around trying to convert people. Not pushing the beliefs on people, I might add, is another appealing factor to the Jewish belief set.

TL;DR: What you say accurately describes most forms of Christianity, but there's at least one religion (Judaism) that doesn't quite fit it. I don't think anyone needs religion, but please keep an open mind and don't condemn all religious beliefs just because Christianity can get a bit nuts.

Re:Maybe Christianity, but the rest?

[Velex]

Replying to undo a mod. Sometimes I need to remind myself that your religion is the reason my genitals were mutilated, and your religion is the reason I spent 10 years in pain (you know, they physical kind that doesn't go away when you sleep and wakes you up in the middle of the night) thinking that was normal fo a guy. Yeah, basically I just said that I'm anti-Semite. I didn't say that I thought more violence was the answer. Just saying I'll be offering my services to Satan as an expert witness harmed by your religion's genital mutilation if he's this prosecutor dude as soon, as he starts existing anyway.

At any rate, somebody can mod me down, but I'm turning my karma bonus off because this is just a comment for Ledgem. You can have your sky wizards and imaginary prosecutors, but what gives you the right to cut off part of my body and pretend that nothing can possibly go wrong? It did go wrong.

Re:Maybe Christianity, but the rest?

[Ledgem]

Sometimes I need to remind myself that your religion is the reason my genitals were mutilated, and your religion is the reason I spent 10 years in pain (you know, they physical kind that doesn't go away when you sleep and wakes you up in the middle of the night) thinking that was normal fo a guy. Yeah, basically I just said that I'm anti-Semite.

I don't think that makes you an anti-Semite, I think that makes you someone who is rightfully upset about suffering that was experienced and that seemingly could have been avoided. However:

You can have your sky wizards and imaginary prosecutors, but what gives you the right to cut off part of my body and pretend that nothing can possibly go wrong? It did go wrong.

You're not assigning blame properly. You ask what gives me the right to cut off a part of your body, but I wasn't the one who cut it off (nor, for that matter, would I have a right or desire to). Additionally, I (and other Jews) do not go around dictating that people must undergo circumcision. While I don't know the circumstances of your birth (when I presume you were circumcised), in most cases it is the parents' decision to have their child undergo circumcision. Mind you, that decision isn't always religiously motivated, and there is even some debate about whether it started with Judaism or elsewhere. Regardless of its origins, at this point in time circumcision is viewed and presented as a hygienic procedure, it is considered to be a low-risk procedure (which doesn't mean no risk, as your case may show), and is entirely optional (except for the infants who are circumcised, whose guardians make the decision for them).

Who should get the blame for your misfortune? Assuming it was done when you were an infant, we could blame your parents for putting you through it; we could blame the rabbi or who ever performed the circumcision for botching it; we could blame any medical professionals who saw you and didn't properly deduce what was going on; we could blame the man who thought up circumcision thousands of years ago. We could put blame on any number of people, ideas, or institutions. Even if I think it's misguided, I certainly don't hold anything against you for blaming Judaism, though - if that's what you need to do to make peace with your suffering, so be it.

Re:Maybe Christianity, but the rest?

[mvdwege]

Christianity seems to dictate that we're all powerless vessels floating on a sea dominated by currents of good and evil. Satan lures you one way, but you need to believe to be saved and reach heaven.

With you stating that you are Jewish, I can forgive you the misunderstanding. What you are saying is close to what the Catholic Church has decried as the Manichean Heresy: the idea that the Devil is an equal power to God in the World's happenings.

The Protestant denominations may give the Devil a larger role in tempting humanity away from God, but even they will not go so far as to say that these forces are equal; although Protestant theology does imply that the fall of Man meant that Man is equally capable of being influenced by either diabolical and divine inspiration.

And the view of both Protestants and Catholics is definitely that evil is an internal force. Sure, there is Evil to tempt humans, but it is up to humans, having knowledge of Good and Evil, to actually consciously decide to take a side.

Of course, the nutjobs in the US have absolutely nothing to do with mainstream theology.

Re:Maybe Christianity, but the rest?

[blackraven14250]

There's also the fact the Jews, since the time of Jesus, have been actively debating those beliefs, and have held debate in the highest regard ever since. That's a feature not found in other religions in nearly any capacity, and really turns out to enhance the inclination of Jews towards progressing knowledge of the natural world, science and mathematics.

1. abolish the electoral college

[circletimessquare]

2. render all financial influence in any election illegal. if you get enough signatures, you are given a modest warchest of equal size as your opponent(s) straight from the taxpayers to campaign
3. fillibusters: no
4. line item vetoes: yes
5. elected representatives are paid the average american salary. yes, this will go down when the economy is sick (and will go up, if they do a good job)
6. what the post above me said. fix 1 congresscritter at a unit of 50,000 citizens
7. no more gerrymandering. districts are decided openly, with citizen input, the input of both parties, and must adhere to general rules, such as preserving obvious boundaries of cities and attempting to retain compact form and observe obvious elements of geography
8. anything else?

i think pretty much a vast decisive majority of americans would agree with these modest, old proposals, left and right

and it will be hard with our current system to get any of the measures passed

Hand over your cell phone sir. You cant have one.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Someone please inform this idiot that he can no longer use a cell phone or any modern technology, and by modern technology, i mean anything created after his fucking savior took it up the ass on two sticks.

Seriously. The big bang isnt real? Ok dipshit, then explain to us how your cell phone works, or your computer works? explain to us how your fucking stove works? I bet you he cant.

The fucking problem with these morons is, they USE technology but cant fucking accept that its not magic. They cant accept the FACT that incredibly smart minded human beings, MANY OF WHICH READ THIS SITE... (thank you for all your hard work)... but this fuck can not accept that WE MAKE THESE THINGS... and WE FIGURE SHIT OUT FOR IDIOTS LIKE HIM.

This dumb fuck cant understand how we got to the big bang, but still has the BALLS to turn on his stove expecting the same outcome. WHY does he get such a luxory? Take it away from him. No more technology for him, because according to him... its all bullshit from hell.

What a fucking moron. Representative Paul Broun (Georgia Republican) is a FUCKING IDIOT. Shove your bible up your ass you FUCKING ARROGANT PILE OF SHIT

thank you

[circletimessquare]

may i suggest you do everything you can to get the assclown kicked out of office so georgia is not a laughingstock?

this is one of the best universities in the nation, and the world:

http://www.gatech.edu/

every single person at this institution should be horrified disgusted revulsed and feeling nauseous that this douchebag speaks for their state

the government has a huge role in science and tech

[circletimessquare]

many science projects have to be backed by the government because they are huge expensive endeavours with no business case

think about what will not be or was not, because some assclown in washington dc didn't back it

here's one example, i'm sure there's 10,000 more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

i know you are talking about policy decisions, like stem cell research. but now you are asking government to not be regulating things that, i'm sorry to say government has every right and need to regulate. if you have to ask why then we veer off in into intellectual charity land and so i have nothing more to say

Re:Post bigotry here

[IMightB]

I wish that more people would realize that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the exact same God/Allah/Yahweh (The God of Abraham) they just differ in the implementation. It seems that the Christians in the US are ignorant of this fact and treat Allah as something other than God.

Re:Post bigotry here

[circletimessquare]

that's exactly right

the kind of people who believe fervently in heaven are the kind of low iq and obsessively controlling type of person it would be hell to spend eternity with

irony

there's nothing wrong with idiots

[circletimessquare]

and there's nothing wrong with beliefs that mean science is wrong

but there is something very wrong with such a person holding substantial amounts of power

and there is something enraging about such an imbecile with power over the science and technology policies of a powerful nation

Re:Post bigotry here

[mark-t]

Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin, which was to discourage intelligent design. It was never intended to be taken seriously, merely to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to incorporate intelligent design theory into science class.

There is absolutely no definitive evidence that the notion of God was contrived by anyone for any purpose other than that of genuine belief. While belief in God may well be considered superstition by many people, comparing it to believing in a modern invention like the FSM, whose design origins are a well-documente historical fact, is only demonstrating profound ignorance.

Winston Churchill:

[circletimessquare]

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."

This is true, obviously, about religion.

It's true about communism

It's true about militant atheists

iI's true about free market fundamentalists

It's true basically, about every belief you can describe. Intolerant idealism is fundamentalism: the belief you have is not to be questioned, and knows no exceptions. This is the root of all evil, right there.

The lesson of life is moderation in all things. As soon as someone takes a belief, any belief, even some beliefs you cherish mightily, to the point where they think they have a right to impose that belief on others, we have the root of all human-caused suffering in the entire world and in all of history.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

What has this guy done that would make him disqualified from the post he serves? The comment isn't enough as it is easily dismissed as pandering to a specific crowd. Even if he did truly believe it with all his intellect and heart, what has he done that is detrimental because of it?

It is not impossible to hold conflicting ideas or beliefs. It is something even children do easily when they play the same games on different devices like the Xbox or Playstation or PC.

Education doesn't need to shield people from religious indoctrination. It needs to give people the tools to understand how the world works so they can be productive and make use of it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

Not a good comparison... since "flying spaghetti monster" has a known origin

You misunderstood my point; you can replace FSM with any hypothetical god. The point was that you can't simply say that unknowns are evidence of a god's existence (I don't know whether or not that's what he was referring to, either. That person wasn't really clear.).

job qualification

[swell]

If you want a McJob at minimum wage, expect to be fingerprinted, probed and studied. You will take tests, have your references checked and be watched constantly while on the clock and off. Your FeceBook and other activities will be scrutinized, your credit checked and you better not pick your nose where a street camera can spot you.

If you want a job in Congress, all you need is a big mouth and enthusiastic handshake. Ethics, intelligence, education not required. You will be guided; told what to say, what to do, when to do it by the best handlers that money can buy. Make a mistake and they will cover for you. Usually.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[sumdumass]

lol.. But the bible doe not say the earth is young. Nowhere in it does it say it was created on X day 6000 some years ago nor does it try to. the 6000 figure is some dogma derived from someone counting the age of the major players in the bible.

And if you wanted to counter this guy in a way that would really set him back, instead of arguing from the side he already considers evil or trying to insult him, just say that God created that so man could be the master of his domain. Genesis tells us that mankind has dominion over all the animals and the earth and when presented with a problem, we would need a way to understand it in order to retain dominion over earth. Therefore evolution and the big bang had to be created by god in the creation of man and man's dominion.

how about

[kakaburra]

He is refused medical aid cuz he thinks science is shit

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

The universe existing is evidence that it was put here by somebody too.

This is exactly the kind of logic that I was referring to. Unknown != evidence of god. The fact that the only explanation you can think of is "god did it" doesn't mean that that's the answer. That's just an argument from ignorance.

The same cannot necessarily be said for God, so his mere existence does not necessitate a creation.

Special pleading. If the universe can't be ageless, then why can that apply to god?

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

You do realize that stoning someone is a law in the bible that needs to be not observed right? The bible is divided into covenants or pacts that god man with certain people. Each new covenant brought different requirement of laws.

Stoning was tossed out with Jesus. He commanded that only those without sin can cast the first stone but his entire premise is that no man is without sin which is why he died on the cross and Christians ask for forgiveness by accepting Jesus.

I'm not sure how you got confused, but it put some other things you seem to belive into doubt

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, we know from observation that the universe isn't ageless.

Not necessarily ageless, but I'm sure you could come up with similar theories (such as that it's in a "loop" of some sort). Regardless, that wasn't really my point. Unknowns aren't evidence of god. "I don't know how else this could be" != evidence of god.

So what does it make people that didn't vote?

[dutchwhizzman]

So what does it make people that didn't vote for this guy? From what I gather, about 10 Million people live there. Of those, roughly 25 are under 18. That gives us about 7.5M people eligible to vote. I have a strong doubt that over 3.75M people voted for this guy.

Also, with the way USA democracy works, chances are that it was either this guy or just one other guy. It could very well be that the other guy was the worse option of the two.

Democracy sometimes means that a minority chooses the less bad of 2 horrible options, not the best candidate for the job.

Re:So what does it make people that didn't vote?

[tburkhol]

The population of the 10th district, which Broun represents is only 700,000. It encompasses the University of Georgia, Augusta, and a slate of rural counties. About 65:35 Republican.

Not that much different from the rest of Georgia, but please don't imagine that anywhere close to 3 million people actually voted for him. Closer to 132,000

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, Calvinism. They say the Calvinist is absolutely sure of everything except whether or not he's saved. Hint: try learning some koine Greek. "Aionios" does not mean eternal, and a good half millennium of Universalism among the leading luminaries of the early churches should give your brimstone-breathing some pause.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kazoo the Clown]

The problem is, you'd spend at least as much time listening to that even if you were in Heaven. What these fundies don't realize is, the Heaven they offer is just as torturous as their Hell, just in a different way. I consider the psychological torture of their Heaven, worse than the physical torture of their Hell.

Re:Post bigotry here

[YttriumOxide]

So you think the purpose of a school is to limit parents' influence on their children. I think the purpose of a school should be learning and the parents should be free to decide more-or-less everything because they're rightfully free citizens, not government subjects.

But the children are members of society and not slaves to their parents to be shaped to their will.

As a parent myself, I WANT society to step in and bitch-slap me hard if I start acting against her best interests. Then if I don't change my ways, I want society to step in and take her away from me.

The tricky part is to determine what is her "best interests". This is something society needs to get together and agree on as a whole.

Note that I don't advocate children becoming mindless drones following the rules of society and never thinking outside the box. That would be a terrible state of affairs. No, I rather advocate that children grow up to understand their society and are capable of living within it without being totally fucked when they are forced to interact with it. They can disagree with it if they so choose (perhaps even because the parent has influenced them in that direction), however they'd better be ready to handle society's reaction.

I guess the main point is that from my point of view, my daughter is an individual person and like any person, has to interact in different circles of life. One is that of her parents (my wife and me); and another is of the city of Hannover, Germany; yet another is the subcontinent of Europe; and yet another is the planet Earth. Each of these circles is a society of a kind and it behooves us all to understand the societies we are in and be capable of interacting with them in the best possible way. Children that do not pass through a formal school system, instead being taught purely at home by their parents or a hired teacher, are usually unable to deal with several of the larger circles that exist and often have large gaps in their knowledge due both to a lack of interaction with others that have opposing viewpoints and a lack of simply being told certain things that the kids who do go to school get taught.

I'm against schools indoctrinating viewpoints; but I'm very much for them explaining viewpoints. I feel very lucky to have attended school in New Zealand, where the system, while not perfect, is a far sight better at this than many other countries I've seen.

Re:Post bigotry here

[cyber-vandal]

I'm sure that idiotic statement qualifies for Godwin status. Yes Pol Pot murdering millions is exactly the same as ensuring that children learn to read and write. You libertarians will never ever convince anyone because you are such dicks. Anyone sick and can't get healthcare. Let's quote Thomas Jefferson at them, that'll make them feel better. Unemployed and can't find a job. Denounce them as lazy and let them starve, even if they just need a little support to get back into the workplace. Our governments are not perfect but they used to be a lot worse as even a basic examination of history will show you.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[YttriumOxide]

Computer science and engineering are not science.

While I agree with you that the GP is an idiot; I do feel like I should point out that computer science most certainly is a science (assuming you consider practically applicable mathematics to be science). General "computing" or whatever it is that's taught in most schools is most certainly not a science, but computer science is.

Remember: "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".

Re:Post bigotry here

[Adriax]

"Rawr roar rar." Said Jesus, trying to blend in.
"Blessed are the huge scaley monsters, for they shall surely inherit the earth."

Re:Post bigotry here

[scsirob]

About half of the American adult population is expected to vote for a guy who thinks just like this, next month.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rohan972]

School has a lot of purposes, everything from teaching specific subjects, to social skills.

At school I saw a far greater prevalence of bullying and intimidation than anything I would call "social skills". The notion that we need the government to provide us a special environment to help us make friends seems a bit creepy to me, to be honest.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[riverat1]

Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. Creationism is a theory in the way that most unscientific people define it. Two different meanings.

Appropriate: Today's Dilbert cartoon

[mha]

Very fitting:

http://www.dilbert.com/2012-10-07/ :)

Re:worse yet..

[riverat1]

He won with 67% of the vote in 2010. It's probably just a waste to try and challenge him.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rohan972]

the cost of homeschooling is far more expensive than the majority of household's income.

Where are you getting your figures from? By far the majority of the cost is lost income, not materials. We homeschool our kids, the teacher at the education department that monitors their progress seems happy and we don't spend anything like the average household's income doing it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Barsteward]

Passing a test would make no difference, there are astrophysicists working for Ken Ham and the creationist museum nut jobs

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

In historical terms it's so close that Chaplin was given a very hard time by the Republicans for being an anti-fascist.
Some idiots even tried to call such a millionaire capitalist a communist - and other idiot believed them.
Of course things have moved on A LOT but some core beliefs remain the same.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Barsteward]

"Considering God telling people to kill other people usually gets them locked up" only if you are not a Christian and even though the bible is a killers charter

Re:Post bigotry here

[Barsteward]

I couldn't live without bacon either, great between 2 slices of bread....

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

Some of the posters here fit that bill - highly educated yet brainwashed by some Pentacostal cult to the extent that they think we should go back to the days before Ben Franklin etc and go fully feudal. Others think the entire science of geology is a fairy tale and the the earth is an unmoving finished object, complete with coal full of fake fossils.
This doctor probably just presented a false front to those that wanted him to stay within the realms of reason but he doesn't have to do that anymore. I'll agree that is pretty weird, but such types seem to infest the odd fringes of politics.

Re:Post bigotry here

[drkim]

Even the natural world gets things "wrong" sometimes; (e.g.) homosexual behaviour and genocidal behaviour amongst animals other than homo sapiens.

Why do you assume "homosexual behaviour and genocidal behaviour" is 'wrong?'
Do you really think some 2000 year old book of fables and fairy-tales is more correct than 3.6 billion years of evolution?

Perhaps these are evolution's best strategy for overpopulation.

Rats spontaneously exhibit homosexual behavior in overcrowded conditions.

Spiders eat their young when food is too scarce to support them.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort.

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514
Not so much a disorder but more a different world view, a rejection of most of what society has done to progress in the last four hundred years or so.

Re:Post bigotry here

[toriver]

- "You have a gaping chest wound! You are bleeding profusely! You need to go into surgery immediately!"
- "No... must... google... surgeon... first..."

Re:Post bigotry here

[drkim]

And your attitudes similarly don't prevent me from thinking that you are too afraid of the notion that you might have to be eternally accountable for your beliefs to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

I'd guess the guy posting as "Anonymous Coward" is the coward.

If there is an omnipotent god, then he built me in such a way that I don't believe in him. He's accountable for that.

If there is no god, you sure are wasting a lot of your time on this nonsense.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

So your solution to not enough education due to drastic cuts in the USA over the past few decades is to abandon it entirely?
What a truly boring devil's advocate line you are taking. You can do better than that since it's so obviously flawed, you obviously do not believe it yourself, and it's of zero value thus you've got no discussion at all going on here apart from pointless name calling - unless that is what you have been looking for.

Re:Post bigotry here

[toriver]

He was probably practicing the fluid balance theories of medicine as well... because genetics and modern medicine are the lies of Satan!

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

Ah - a smash the state type. Ask your nearest Chinese student how that went when they tried exactly what you've suggested above and how many decades it took for a partial recovery.
Yes, I know this is either a troll game or you've been wasting money on illegal drugs, but I couldn't leave such stupidity alone in case the gullible get sucked in by it.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Alain Williams]

I suppose it depends on the exact definition of theory, it can mean a well established explanation, also (2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation. But, you are right, in that creationists attempt to place their (weak) theory (or postulate) on the same level as evolution that is well tested; thus trying to gain credibility by association. The theories that you mention all started out as 'postulates' but were then found to be supported by the evidence, make good predictions, etc, creationism does not travel far down this road.

Re:Post bigotry here

[toriver]

But where did he condone all the other methods of execution that Christians have used up through the centuries? It's not like being pelted with stones is any worse than being "drawn and quartered", for instance. Then again there is a growing consensus that a country practicing the death penalty - aka sanctioned murder - in any form in this day and age is barbaric.

Re:Post bigotry here

[toriver]

Nobody has ever observed God

What? But there are many stories of Vishnu taking on a human form and visiting his believers...

Oh, wait, you are talking about another god.

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

You don't need to be a teacher to home school. Well, in some states in the US, anyway. I've heard that some states are quite strict about homeschooling.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

condone or condemn? Either way, it is not supported by the bible. Do not confuse what people do with a law in the bible.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

I get the impression that Americans in the 1950s and some years later had a similar idea and wanted their children to surpass them, so I don't think Christianity as a whole can be blamed, probably just the portions that want the Church to run the State.
My own country is nominally mostly Christian (but not Pentacostal, Mormon or whatever else likes to get it's tentacles deeply into politics), and my parents, born in the 1930s, are very proud that all of their children had careers that surpassed theirs. They did mostly get the Christianity beaten out of them at Christian schools and are agnostic, but it's a common source of pride among parents where I live when their children and grandchildren excel, and I'm very proud of my nephews and nieces.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

Wow, you're really rolling out the troll material tonight. Last time I looked China has only been making the good choices relatively recently and everything had been going badly for them earlier - are you cheering for Mao or something?

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

It's no longer just a wacky and harmless private opinion when it becomes something that is enforced on others.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

That's what I'm asking, what was done? What has happened to make it enforced on others? Surely just stating the opinion is not enough.

Oh no - out comes Galileo

[dbIII]

With respect, people keep wheeling that old one out without having a clue. About 99% of the situation was about directly insulting his old colleage the Pope and the other 1% was worry about a loss of political power for those that were currently teaching astronomy. The Pope had to let the insult stand and lose respect or go after him, and he was probably pissed off enough to go after him anyway.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples, even in the last 100 years (eg. evolution) that fit, but the tired old Galileo example doesn't. Isn't is funny that this is coming up on a discussion about levels of education, and even funnier that it's an engineer that had a better education in history?

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Fringe issues like the ever-expanding national security state, unilateral power grabs by the executive, foreign wars (including the never-ending "war on terrorism"), the stupid, destructive "war on drugs" with its related prison-industrial complex, pervasive government secrecy and an unofficial war on whistleblowers....

Re:Post bigotry here

[riverat1]

And how many home schooling parents do you think are really competent to teach math beyond basic arithmetic? There is a substantial difference in teaching a class of 15 or more student (who are unrelated to you) vs. teaching 1 or 2 kids as is more typical in home schooling.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dunkelfalke]

You are the one being confused. There is no government in communism and all questions are meant to be decided by grassroots democracy.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

From the summary:
"What impact could this have on policy? What impact could this have on STEM education not just in Georgia but all over the U.S.?"
If the answer is none at all to both then you have a point, so if he starts acting more professionally than he was when he made the statement then it does remain a private opinion. What do you think the odds are of that? I think they are low, but maybe you know more about this person's history.

This is about the threat of unprofessionally pushing unrelated agendas of fringe religeous groups that didn't even exist before the San Francisco earthquake (yet they want us all to see them as conservatives that have always been on an unchanging earth) onto the children of a nation of 300 million people. The guy can do a lot of damage just for the sake of giving those groups a bit more political and financial power (merchants in the temple after all) over the next generation.

Re:Post bigotry here

[jareth-0205]

Yes, understood, I'm mainly trying to counter Kohath's bizarre assertion that the school system is such a sprawling bureaucracy that homeschooling is cheaper even if you hire your own teacher. There's no way it can be as inefficient as he has decided.

Though, I still say it's an possibility only open to the few, you need to be rich enough to hire someone qualified, or rich enough (less so) to cope with potential lost income, and have a parent or someone available willing to do it and who has the intelligence and skills to teach. And that's not many.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

He's a sitting member of congress and evidently has been for a while. if he was going to do something stupid over his beliefs (that i thin k was more pandering to a specific group he was in front of then anything), don't you think he would have already started?

The guy can't do too much damage, he isn't the only person on the comity and committees do not make laws. Well, they word them, but it takes the rest of congress plus a senate and usually the president to make a law. The system is designed with fault tolerances.

Re:Post bigotry here

[MysteriousPreacher]

What has this guy done that would make him disqualified from the post he serves? The comment isn't enough as it is easily dismissed as pandering to a specific crowd. Even if he did truly believe it with all his intellect and heart, what has he done that is detrimental because of it?

Pandering is part of politics. Pandering by being diametrically opposed to the position he should be occupying is way beyond that. His beliefs are in direct opposition to science. He's a loud and proud fundie - yelling his wilful ignorance from the hilltops. Broun is no Francis Collins.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

I understand that holding religious ideals while associating with science is sacrilege to the atheist and all, but if that's all he has done wrong, then you guys need to stop being scared. He has done nothing counter to his position while in the capacity of it... At least no one can seem to point to anything..

Re:Post bigotry here

[rohan972]

I think you'd find that most people who do it aren't particularly rich, they make do, just like people who live on one income for the first few years until school, except longer. In Queensland you can get a government supplied curriculum to follow which shouldn't be too hard for most people, particularly if they have tertiary education. Admittedly my wife is a trained teacher and I personally wouldn't be that keen to do it myself, but I think a lot of people could handle primary level teaching to a couple of kids easier than a teacher trying to teach a whole classroom. High school not so much.

It will never become the way the majority are educated simply because most people don't want to do it. It is a good fallback to have if the education system doesn't suit you.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Joce640k]

You can't be bigoted against an idea.

All ideas and concepts are fair game for critique. The ones that fail are discarded.

...except in politics.

What's to see?

[Fished]

Don't be surprised if, when you use science to attack people's religion, they start to hate science.

Re:Post bigotry here

[gtall]

So, you are saying you have no faith? Because if you did, you wouldn't care about evidence.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity *is* evil. You may think that every time someone drops a piano on the head of an animated character, it's just a funny cartoon, but in reality you've been indoctrinated as a child by the propaganda of evil, socialist gravitationists who want to destroy the fabric of our society.

You know who also uses gravity? Terrorists.

Re:the government has a huge role in science and t

[drinkypoo]

Government's role in technology ought to be primarily to promote it. Government's role in science ought to be to utilize it.

Government ought not to regulate stem cell research, except to say that you can't kill people for their stem cells; wait, we do that already, because that would be murder one. We already have regulations on medical research, and there is no more need for new ones which apply to stem cell research than there is a need for patents which end "...on the internet." Existing laws cover the issues more than adequately.

Don't worry

[GameboyRMH]

If this is legitimate devil science, the universe has ways of shutting the whole thing down ;-)

Passing the buck

[gottabeme]

It's sad how these gross generalizations and logical fallacies get modded up all the time.

"Any person who doesn't hunt down and silence any person who claims to believe the same things yet is an 'extremist', such a person must be collaborating with the 'extremist'."

I don't agree with "extremists" like this, but I am not responsible for him. I am responsible for myself. You are responsible for using your brain and discerning--as you appear to be capable of--the extremists from the rest, and for discerning the differences between them, and for not piling them all into one lump group.

If you fail to do this, you are just as guilty as the people whom you accuse--moreso, I would argue. You're just passing the buck onto "the rest of them" for not "putting in place" "their own."

At least you admit that you're guilty of assuming.

Re:Post bigotry here

[berashith]

yup. be as much of an asshole as you want, treat people like crap, then give a big "just kidding" at the last second. l would rather live a good life, and if there is judgement, then base it on who I really am, not a few short words.

what I don't get...

[buddyglass]

...is how embryology can be a lie. There's obviously ethical disagreement on things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but neither of those is embryology.

Re:what I don't get...

[pruss]

Strictly speaking, going by the linked article, he never said that embryology (or evolution or the Big Bang, for the matter) was a lie. He said that all that he was taught about embryology, evolution or the Big Bang was a lie. In the case of evolution and the Big Bang that's probably not much of a distinction. In the case of embryology, it might be a bigger distinction.

Re:what I don't get...

[tehcyder]

...is how embryology can be a lie. There's obviously ethical disagreement on things like abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but neither of those is embryology.

Do you really think he bothered looking up the difference between embryology and embryonic stem cell research?

Re:what I don't get...

[neminem]

Hm? That's actually a -huge- distinction in the case of evolution or the big bang, if he said that: "all he was taught" about them probably came from his Sunday school and/or ultraconservative pundits, who presumably got all the facts completely wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if "everything he was taught" about evolution and the big bang -was- a lie.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[buddyglass]

You overreach. If Creationism isn't science (as the intelligent design opponents often argue) then it's unlikely to be "disprovable" in the scientific sense. Especially if we're talking about the broad category of "Creationism" and not specific creation narratives.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

I was responding to someone who was saying the PRC had the best system of choosing leaders. And I said basically what you said: that there's no long-term record -- that a few years don't prove that the PRC (or anyone else) can succeed "consistently".

It's an argument against government power. You don't want bad leaders to have power over you. And every nation eventually gets bad leaders.

You should learn to follow the discussion. Click on the "Parent" links to see the context. Then your posts won't be so nonsensical.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Anonymous Coward]

(4) not american, and wondering when will they start voting for 3rd, 4th and more parties

Computer science and engineering are not science

[kennykb]

As an engineer and a computer scientist, I quite agree with you. That said, it is impossible to be competent at either without a firm grounding in the science that underlies them. Alas, it is quite possible for anyone - including distinguished scientists - to be abysmally ignorant of matters outside their specialties.

Surprise! A Republican

[assertation]

I am never surprised reading headlines like this one before discovering the person is a Republican.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

There's been no name-calling. Please learn to read the posts you're responding to.

"The system" is an extremely expensive failure that hurts children. The people who defend "the system" have offered zero ideas, including you. Parents should have other options to spend their education dollars.

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

as someone who works in software, implementation is everything.

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

"Why is only the crazies that stick out with any group?"

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

"Protecting the physical security of our country and its people is a totally separate function..."

"We don't need all these defense appropriations. God will defend us. Why is your faith so weak?"

J. Jesuson, (R) Mississippi

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

The purpose of a system is the to make results less the result of chance and fortunate circumstances and more predictable.

It doesn't work for kids in poor neighborhoods. It's a failure, and an extremely expensive one. But people who defend the school "system" generally don't care about kids in poor neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, homeschoolers don't, in general, have the problems you claim to be worried about. Home schooled kids get a better education than government schooled kids. It doesn't take an institutional setting to have learning standards -- anyone can do it.

Stop spreading FUD.

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

because they couldn't get real astrophysicist jobs?

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

your results are old. many contemporary homes schoolers reached your conclusion and set about home schooling their kids. talk to some of their kids.

Re:Post bigotry here

[kanweg]

"Funny how the "holy" wars continue under a Democratic president. Expand, even."

Yes, expanded, certainly. The invasion in Libya is a good example, not to mention the invasion of Syria.

Those invasions have cost the US people a lot of tax payer money.

Bert

Re:Post bigotry here

[scotts13]

And your attitudes similarly don't prevent me from thinking that you are too afraid of the notion that you might have to be eternally accountable for your beliefs to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

Oh, I do - I hedge my bets by trying to be a "good person". But oddly enough, that has sociological benefits in addition to the religious ones. I let god, the afterlife, and the tooth fairly rule my life in exact proportion to the evidence for their existence - i.e. pretty close to zero.

Challenge: Give me one shred of evidence, other than hearsay, that there IS an afterlife. I'll wait...

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[BonThomme]

erasing contravenes infallibility

Re:Post bigotry here

[yelvington]

Standards are well accepted on the Internet...

Tell me sir, what flavors of html and css your browser support? Which versions it supporys correctly? What addations to those standards ithas made for its own use?

Forest. Trees.

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

saying everything must have a creator is like saying everything must have a beginning and an end.

so, where does the circle begin and where does it end?

"Where I say it does."

Ahhhh, there you go.

Re:Post bigotry here

[BonThomme]

there's a good reason you don't.

Re:Post bigotry here

[kanweg]

"As for evidence God exists? It's everywhere... *literally*. You might simply not see it because you aren't looking for it..."

If you are looking for it and see Yagolah everywhere, please take a picture for me in such a case. For example, if you see a rainbow tagged "Jesus", post the picture. So I can check that it wasn't Thor or something. Don't want to risk pissing a god off by praying to the wrong one or using the wrong name.

Bert

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

So we're never allowed to ask what "making a difference" means. I see. That's some great critical thinking you have there.

Your whole post is one strawman after another. I offered zero Jefferson quotes, denounced no one as lazy, let no one starve, addressed healthcare not at all, and equated Pol Pot with exactly zero other things or people.

I agree that some libertarians do state their case poorly. Some of them are dicks, particularly some of the Ron Paul fanatics. And quotes are rarely persuasive or interesting, especially the 1000th time to read the same line.

I wish these guys would get better at this. Because we need more people making the case against centralizing power, against using government to steal your neighbors' money so you can spend it without earning it, and against using force to manage others' lives.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Barsteward]

I was just pointing out a test was useless as the astrophysicists were backing up/promoting the creationist idea, perhaps i should have made that point clearer.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dbIII]

Hmm - "please learn to read" after misunderstanding what you've read? Amusing. Looking above I see people saying you are full of bullshit and questioning your sanity, which makes it look like you are inspiring a bit of name calling to me. Have fun if that's what adds meaning to your life, but don't expect us all to take your silly attention seeking trolling seriously.

Re:Post bigotry here

[danaris]

The purpose of a system is the to make results less the result of chance and fortunate circumstances and more predictable.

It doesn't work for kids in poor neighborhoods. It's a failure, and an extremely expensive one. But people who defend the school "system" generally don't care about kids in poor neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, homeschoolers don't, in general, have the problems you claim to be worried about. Home schooled kids get a better education than government schooled kids. It doesn't take an institutional setting to have learning standards -- anyone can do it.

Stop spreading FUD.

That's not because the concept of a school system is bad. That's because our current implementation is flawed. We need a more even distribution of funds to schools, rather than having each school being funded primarily by the district it's in.

Of course, making that change and then expecting to have instant results is also stupid, because a lot of the difference in poor neighbourhoods is the attitude at home, which was developed partly through not having a properly-funded school when the parents were students. It will take a few generations of ensuring that all our schools are well-funded and well-supplied (both with supplies and good teachers) for it to be a true equalizer.

Dan Aris

Re:Sheep on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter nonsense. Atheism has no dogma, no directions or rules with which to "create" a government or guide governmental decisions. That's a far cry from the evangelical nature of Christianity, which seeks power, influence and control by its very nature.

There is HUGE correlation between Christianity and acts committed specifically in the name of Christianity -- Christianity is a great deal more like communism than atheism is. Kill people for the idea? Check. Force them to comply? Check. Invade other countries? Check. State-directed action against citizens not within (or who even LOOK like they're not within) the fold? Check. Loudmouthed leaders who get up and make blustery speeches the rabble are supposed to cheer? Check. Bullshit dogma that lays out the ground rules for behavior? Check. And NONE of that is true for atheism.

Too much to wrap your head around, I know. Don't worry, no one really expects it of you.

Religion is a toxin that invades minds that have no defense in the form of critical thinking. It won't go away until we improve education, not to mention a few other things.

There is no human who is not religious.

That... that's just stupid. None so blind as those who will not see, chum.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Jason Levine]

Should we also teach Phrenology and every other discredited theory that ever existed?

The problem with "teaching both sides" (besides the fact that there aren't really "two sides") is that there is limited classroom time. Teachers shouldn't have to waste time on "theories" (using that word loosely) that have no evidence supporting them.

Alternatively, if you want to teach Christian-based creationism as a "theory on equal footing" as Evolution then you should teach every other creation myth that ever existed. Wiccan creation myths, ancient Norse creation myths, etc. After all, what if one of those is the right one? Of course, with so many myths to teach and so little class time, teachers will only be able to spend about 10 seconds per myth.

Re:Post bigotry here

[iainr]

I knocked on the pearly gates
Neatly side-stepping the long queue
Waved hi to St. Peter
Who checked my card and let me through
I smiled, threw my hands in the air
Laughed and got arrested
They said hey man, you're in the wrong place
Your behaviour is a disgrace
Here we pray every hour, on the hour
Read extracts from the Bible and look solemn'
What, says I, no party?
No party?
Let me out

(Gillan,McCoy, Torme, Towns, Underwood) No Laughing in heaven

I guess Heaven or Hell is in the eye of the beholder

Evolution?

[frisket]

So evolution is meant to convince people they don't need a saviour? Apart from the fact that this is a non-sequitur, has this useless fuckwit of a legislator actually read Darwin's Origin of Species? In particular the penultimate paragraph:

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.

Whether or not people need a saviour is unrelated to how people got here. If this is an example of the mental processes of an elected representative, he should probably go back to kindergarten and start again, without the religious upbringing which has led to his derangement.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Alain Williams]

Should we also teach Phrenology and every other discredited theory that ever existed?

The problem with "teaching both sides" (besides the fact that there aren't really "two sides") is that there is limited classroom time. Teachers shouldn't have to waste time on "theories" (using that word loosely) that have no evidence supporting them.

I agree that there is not time to teach everything, there is only time for the ''important'' ones. Next question: which theories are important ? You could say those which are/were important in the development of evolution; but I would add to those the wacky ideas that are current in society today -- including creationism/intelligent_design/... Phrenology is not important today, so it needs little (if any) time. I am not advocating teaching the arguments of creationism in a non critical way; its arguments/postulates should be explained and the kids then shown how these do not stand up to observation. Ditto evolution: show (in a critical and objective way) how it has been largely successful and how small modifications have been needed in the face of new evidence -- which is the scientific way!

You also seem to be assuming that all theories should be given equal classroom time. Give them individually sufficient time so that the kids are able to make an informed decision as to how likely they are to be true. Remember that some kids will be from a creationist background where parents/priests/... will try to undo the insight/learning that they got at school; they need to be given the tools to rebut the arguments of fantasy; they won't gain them unless enough time is spent in the classroom showing the flaws in the creationist argument.

School education is not just about getting kids through exams, it is about giving them something for life and raising the standards in society as a whole.

Re:Post bigotry here

[bfandreas]

US Presidential Elections(dutifully capitalized) are fleeting whims on the arse end of history. Izzard is eternal.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

It doesn't work for kids in poor neighborhoods.

It works a lot better than not giving them an education, which is what brutal no-holds-barred capitalism would result in, because no teacher would work for the money they can pay.

Meanwhile, homeschoolers don't, in general, have the problems you claim to be worried about. Home schooled kids get a better education than government schooled kids. It doesn't take an institutional setting to have learning standards -- anyone can do it.

Home schooling isn't for everyone. Most importantly, the demographic with the lowest percentage of home schooling in the USA are - what a surprise - the poor (source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/twps0053.html).

I'm not going to enter a discussion about home vs. public schooling here. It is a fact that not everyone can or wants to do home schooling, so there is and for the forseable future will be a public school system. And if you have public schools, then having a system for them is a good thing, because otherwise those who can do the least about it will once again draw the short sticks.

Okay -- do something. Write your news station.

[Scottie-Z]

Okay, I've had it. I am a Christian myself, but this is just embarrassing. This guy is even a "young earth" creationist, which in my opinion should disqualify him from serving on any committee associated with science. If you agree, please consider writing your local news station to suggest that they report on this story. If it gets wide enough press, perhaps there will be some pressure to hand the job over to someone who actually accepts the tenets of basic science.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rs79]

"God and the devil are the same thing, the devil is in the details"

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Looking above I see people saying you are full of bullshit and questioning your sanity...

Because they mostly can't form a cogent defense of the school "system". It feeds them, so they're loyal to it. But loyalty to your paymaster isn't related to facts or reason or ethics. That's why we see the nevermind how many people the system hurts, you're a stupid poopy-head comments.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rs79]

Better than that, read on up the genesis and evolution of Christianity. Christians don't and would be in for a bit of a shock if they did.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

And if you have public schools, then having a system for them is a good thing, because otherwise those who can do the least about it will once again draw the short sticks.

There's that argument again: We have to maintain this inefficient, extremely expensive, oppressive system that keeps poor kids from getting a reasonable education because ... otherwise poor kids won't get an education.

Re:Post bigotry here

[almechist]

You keep telling your self that. It won't make your eternal torture in hell go away. Don't claim you weren't warned. God is just. You will suffer for all your infinitely large sins against Him*. You have broken His commandments and stand guilty before Him. The perversions you follow as morals won't help you when judgement day comes. How you followed some of them won't cover how you broke Gods commandments. How God isn't following your "morals" isn't relevant as He is judging you, not the other way around. Crying about how we all are His children won't help you. Screaming at me for violating the brotherhood of man by agreeing with God on what you deserve is pathetic. You are not His child and I am not your brother*. You are now closer to the day God will judge you than you were when you wrote your post. You are therefore closer to Hell*.

I actually read the Bible front to back and saw what kind of a psycho asshole your god really is. If it truly exists, (doubtful) it has no right to judge anyone. Your god embodies malice to a degree that no human could ever hope to reach. Biblegod is clearly the product of a harsh, primitive, barbaric culture and it definitely shows.

Oh absolutely, wish I had mod points. To cite just one personal sticking point: any god who would inflict eternal torment upon otherwise good and honest people simply because they happen to hold different religious beliefs (or none at all) is not deserving of our worship! Period. It doesn't even matter whether He exists or not, if eternal damnation of unbelievers is part of the dogma, then the entire Church is no good. This should be absolutely self-evident to anyone with even a rudimentary sense of morality. There may or may not be sufficiently evil acts to render a human being truly deserving of an eternity of torment in Hell, but non-belief isn't one of them, and proclaiming that it is merely serves to proclaim the inner corruption of a particular faith.

New laws of physics.

[rs79]

This is "relativistic time" that Einstein hinted at and examples abound in nature: the earth is always 6000 years old and new TLDs are two years away from whenever you ask; the latter has been true since 1996.

Who elected this bozo anyway?

[DroidFreak]

He's the kind of person that gives Christianity a bad name. I am a Christian. I support Intelligent Design. But I don't deny Common Descent and I certainly don't deny the Big Bang. The Big Bang is conclusive evidence FOR a creator! You can't claim that the universe is all that exists when it's plain as day that it had a beginning. This guy is just an anti-scientist, he's not worthy of the Christian faith or of the Republican party.

Re:Who elected this bozo anyway?

[tehcyder]

I support Intelligent Design.

It's really hard to take anything you say after that seriously.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

You claim to disprove creationism? Give me evidence. I have read a lot on the subject, and I still hold to the statement that some supernatural being must have been involved in the creation of the world and of life. Here are a few points:

1 - The Big Bang. Good luck explaining how the universe is all that there is when it had a beginning. Explosions don't come out of nothing!

2 - Earth is precisely fine-tuned for life. See "The Privileged Planet" for a crash course that is by no means conclusive, there is much more than that.

3 - Life is incredibly irreducibly complex at the cellular level. Good luck generating a living cell from non-living material under any conditions, it's just not possible.

And that's just the begging of the evidence for an intelligent creator. Intelligent Design is not just a denial of Evolution, it is a very well-supported scientific theory that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it. Are you scared? Or will you bring actual evidence to the table?

Re:Indeed

[circletimessquare]

every single major country in the world, and in history, has a strong central government. welcome to reality

Re:Post bigotry here

[Guy Harris]

Actually, this makes me wonder if he's developing a disorder of some sort.

Developing? As per a Salon story about him:

Meanwhile, some people around the country — joined by some voters in Broun’s own 10th District — were starting to ask, just who is this guy, anyway? There was a time when Paul Broun Jr. asked the same question of himself. It happened in 1986, when the 40-year-old baby boomer was into booze and into his fourth marriage already — and having problems with both. Broun was at an NFL football game and drinking heavily when he noticed the fan who was a quasi-celebrity back during the Reagan years, the guy with the crazy rainbow-haired wig who stood in the end zone seats with the sign, “John 3:16.” Broun said in a speech on the floor of Congress after his election to Congress two decades later that he was captivated by this “gentleman with this big type hair wig on.” A few weeks later, after another fight with his new wife, he took out a Bible, read the verse, and decided to dedicate his life to Christ. (Ironically, it was the exact same year and at the same age that George W. Bush quit drinking as well.) Broun now considers his odyssey to the corridors of power the result of Jesus’ calling. He fails to add the kicker to the story, that the wig-wearing fan, a fellow named Rollen Stewart, is currently serving three life sentences for kidnapping.

Or, to steal and tweak Cheech and Chong's line, "I used to be all messed up on booze. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord." It's sad that some people need something in their lives to keep their brain from racing off in the wrong direction; unfortunately, they either abuse substances and hurt themselves or they abuse religion and run the risk of hurting others.

Re:Post bigotry here

[marvinglenn]

You can't be bigoted against an idea.

But if you hold a particular idea, can you be called a bigot and be summarily dismissed? And those ideas that are generally accepted to be bigoted never get a fair discussion because those that would argue in favor of them are marginalized and dismissed for merely advocating the idea.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Hognoxious]

Arabic speaking Christians say Allah when referring to the father portion of the Christian Holy Trinity.

Smart move if there's any chance of them being overheard.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Todd Knarr]

1. And yet we can observe the remnants of just such an explosion. Creationism says that explosion didn't happen, so it predicts we won't see it's remnants. Creationism's prediction conflicts with observed evidence.

2. You forget one thing: if Earth weren't fine-tuned for life, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. And no matter the odds, given the likely number of planets in the universe it's a virtual certainty that any given set of conditions will occur at least once purely by chance. As Scarne puts it: "The odds don't tell you that you'll never be dealt a royal flush. They tell you how often you will be dealt one.".

3. And yet scientists have taken non-living material and in the lab subjected it to the conditions found on early Earth, and observed the formation of DNA and the other building blocks that, once present, almost inevitably combine to produce the simplest forms of organic life (which are in fact not single-celled organisms, they aren't even proper cells, but we know how cells evolve from them). If your theory predicts this won't happen, your theory conflicts with the observed evidence.

So, 3 swings, 3 strikes. Not an extremely good batting average there.

Re:Post bigotry here

[ahodgson]

There was no Canada, per se, at the time. You started the war. Yes the Brits burned the white house. Good times.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Hognoxious]

The only safe choice is to very strictly limit government power, so when unworthy people get elected, they can't hurt anyone.

Warlordism is pretty dangerous. Even for warlords.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Guy Harris]

But of course, I don't expect this argument probably isn't going to change your mind about what you believe. Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.

I suspect we have a pot and a kettle here.

For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God... since this universe appears to obey principles of causality, and everything in it has a beginning. God isn't a special case or exception to this necessity of origin because God isn't really part of the universe in the first place.

Of course, the creator of the universe could just be a normal entity in another universe who's running us in a simulator (Nick Bostrom, please pick up the white courtesy phone), and that universe could itself be a simulation.

Or, alternatively, a committee (or something else not-Yahweh).

In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.

But what if we're not characters in a book?

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Because hospitals can't qualify their own surgeons before they hire them. We should leave that to government bureaucrats.

Re:Post bigotry here

[cheekyjohnson]

There is *zero* evidence that the universe is in a "loop".

It was just an example. As I keep saying, unknowns do not constitute as evidence.

But if you can interpret unknowns as evidence of god, the same can be said for whatever random theories you can come up with.

However... do not conflate evidence with proof.

I've seen nothing I'd personally call evidence.

Your tenacity to keep responding suggests that your resolution is quite firm, and you are fairly certain of what you believe you know.

I have a certain degree of confidence about it. Of course, if your logic holds, the same must apply to you.

For what it's worth, I've never argued that ignorance is evidence of God.... I've argued that things existing at all can be taken as quite reasonable evidence that there is a God

I certainly wouldn't say it's reasonable to do so, and I was aware that people do take them as evidence. I could interpret the universe existing as meaning that a god doesn't exist and then call that reasonable; it doesn't mean much, in my opinion.

In the end, I see suggesting the notion that there is no God to be much like a character in a story suggesting that the book he is in didn't have an author at all. It's absurd, in fact.

What makes you think we're like characters in a book? Why does the same not apply to this god?

Re:Post bigotry here

[rkhalloran]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Guy Harris]

2 - Earth is precisely fine-tuned for life. See "The Privileged Planet" for a crash course that is by no means conclusive, there is much more than that.

Try harder.

3 - Life is incredibly irreducibly complex at the cellular level. Good luck generating a living cell from non-living material under any conditions, it's just not possible.

And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?

Intelligent Design is not just a denial of Evolution, it is a very well-supported scientific theory that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.

[Citation needed]

Are you scared? Or will you bring actual evidence to the table?

You first.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kojow777]

That's the politically correct thing to say. In actuality there is no truth to that. For example, Muslims reject the Biblical teaching that Jesus is the God who is the Creator of all things (John 1, Collosians 1, Hebrews 1, etc.) so in reality Muslims reject the God of the Bible. Likewise, Christians reject the God who is displayed in the Qur'an as it contradicts the God from the Bible. The original Qur'an actually said that Allah had three divine daughters: el-Lat, el-Uzza, and Manat. Muhammed later changed this and said he was hearing that from Satan when he thought he was hearing it from God.

Re:Post bigotry here

[SimplexBang]

Then read the Quoran and know that it was an absolute improvement ...

in other news...

[psy0rz]

most senators are incompetent morons and we're all doomed

Re:Post bigotry here

[rs79]

Actually it was Albany and we fucking burned it to the ground which it was why it was moved to DC.

No, we can't do it again so stop asking. We get this all the time. Eh.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rs79]

Doctors are just glorified mechanics good for repairing acute mechanical injuries but it should be clear from the almost zero progress on chronic disease they're not the end all be all. It's not like they're molecular biologists or something.

Re:Post bigotry here

[ShieldW0lf]

Christians believe their god is the same god as the Jews, but the Jews believe their prophet was a heretic. Muslims believe their god is the same god as the Jews and the Christians, but the Jews and the Christians believe their prophet was a heretic. Bahai believe their god is the same god as the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims, but the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims believe their god is a heretic.

The first three systems have proven that they grant an evolutionary advantage to their adherents, which makes them all wise. The last one needs to be tested a little longer. All of them are flawed undersandings of the universe, which is understandable, because the universe is big and the human mind is tiny.

If you can't grant them what respect they've proven themselves to deserve, you really have nothing to offer on the subject.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

Are you just dense?

Yes, I prefer some education over no education. And quite frankly, unless you can show a different, more efficient, less expensive and whatever else system that guarantees an education to every child then honestly you can fuck off because if your proposal does not satisfy that requirement then it is elitest crap and a return to the dark ages where only the wealthy and powerful got education.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sysrammer]

Argh, I meant to say a rational *person* would condemn god's atrocious behavior.

NP. I thought you were being "deep".

Re:Post bigotry here

[sysrammer]

As for myself, I always figured it was likely a situation much like Iceland / Greenland. Give the more likable of the afterlives an ugly name, and most of the the assholes will do whatever they can to be sent to that other place. So, um...yeah, see ya in hell! *Wink wink.*

I like this theory.

Re:Post bigotry here

[brantondaveperson]

Well that's all great and everything, but I'm really curious about what your proposed alternative is? I hear calls for 'small government' all the time, but I wonder what you would replace all the functions of 'big government' with?

For instance, who would fix the roads? Private road companies, I presume, who would charge you to use their roads? Schools would be what? Community-run, so that they teach only what the local community happens to think. Grow up in (please, no geographical corrections!) the bible belt and expect to hear nothing about Evolution during your education.

Yes, every government has eventually fallen. Except for the ones that haven't, but of course they just haven't fallen yet. And thus your prediction is always true.

Your notion that home-schooling is remotely even a possibility for 90% of the population is a bit strange too, unless I'm mis-understanding your suggestions. It's a bit like suggesting that everyone should learn to maintain their own car, and that the garage down the street is an instrument of oppression.

You talked a little earlier (or later, I've been scrolling around alot) about your school experiences not being happy ones. I'm sorry to hear that, my experience was different. I had good teachers, and once I found which things I was actually interested in I learned alot. University was even better. My experience of the education system here in New Zealand, now that I have three young children in Primary School, is that the teachers are universally motivated, passionate, hard-working and that I'd damn glad to get the kids out of the house every day.

Re:Post bigotry here

[MysteriousPreacher]

No, you understand little of "the atheist" - about as much as you understand of "the negro".

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[brantondaveperson]

Yes, and you can't be omnipotent and omniscient and all-good and allow mudslides to bury schoolchildren. But that doesn't seem to bother them either.

Sad, but not surprising

[Just Brew It!]

We already know that there's a congressman who believes you can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape," so the fact that idiocy like this exists on the Hill isn't surprising at all. I do wonder how he managed to get on the Science, Space and Technology committee though. How are committee appointments determined? My guess is that he volunteered (and almost certainly has an ulterior agenda).

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kojow777]

Yes, not sure what you mean by 'proven', but we should certainly respect each person's choice to follow their own beliefs. It does not, however, mean that we have to accept their beliefs or water down our own beliefs just for the sake of political correctness.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

1: You are just proving my point. YES, the big bang happened. Now tell me what caused it if God didn't. On this one you swung the wrong way. Strike one.

2: That's a circular argument. Your statement in a nutshell: "We exist and God doesn't, therefore something other than God caused us to exist". Also, you won't find "the likely number of planets in the universe" helping you out any. The estimated improbability of a planet supporting life far exceeds the estimated number of planets in the universe. And by far I mean orders of magnitude. In other words, you will be dealt a royal flush once in a million lifetimes and you only have one lifetime. Strike two.

3: ---"subjected it to the conditions found on early Earth" Nope. The actual conditions on the early earth were extremely hostile to life. The conditions they use to produce the building blocks of life about to 'throw the exact building blocks of the molecule we want into a solution and catalyze it in a specific way.
---"observed the formation of DNA" Maybe they observed the formation of nucleic acids, but they did NOT observe the formation of a genome or of a cell.
---"inevitably combine to produce the simplest forms of organic life" HA. They don't combine to form anything meaningful at all unless scientists very specifically filter them out from the waste products and combine them is specific ways.
---"we know how cells evolve from them" This is the biggest bit of nonsense in that whole stream of nonsense. Evolutionists very naively ASSUME that anything capable of anything close to self-reproduction inevitably becomes a full-fledged cell. The cell is a massively complex molecular city complete with factories, roads, and machines of staggering complexity. Not a one of these machines could have arisen by random chance, and Natural Selection is certainly not up to the job. Natural Selection only acts on pre-existing functionality. It CANNOT create ANY new feature, only discover features that are hidden within the system already or slightly modify existing features.
---"your theory conflicts with the observed evidence" You observed a cell arising by chance from anything resembling an early earth environment? I seriously doubt that. In fact, I doubt to about 50 orders of magnitude that it will ever be observed.

I believe that's strike seven. Your batting average is well into the negative by now.

Re:Post bigotry here

[RespekMyAthorati]

This is what I don't understand.
Why is it that Southerners love to elect/re-elect Bubba-the-village-idiot as their congressman? Do they consider it a way of sticking it to the Northerners?

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

Try harder.

Really? That's the best you've got? 'We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefore it's likely that we exist.' Presupposing your conclusion is bad form. It's also a logical fallacy.

And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?

Ok, you asked for it. The simplest genome known today has 580000 base pairs. Assuming that the simplest possible genome is 1 percent of that (more accurate predictions run about 60-70 percent of that but I'm being very generous here), and assuming that generating a genome is synonymous with generating a cell which is a massive simplification in your favor, you still need to come up with genetic information with a probability of one in 4^5800. I have yet to find a calculator that gives a value for 4^58000 besides "Infinity" and "ERROR", the highest you can get in Google calculator is a mere 4^511, which is 10^307 in more common notation. In contrast the number of atoms in the earth is only about 10^50 and the number of seconds since the origin of the universe is about 10^17. Now you have some explaining to do. How do you overcome odds so great the almighty Google declares them infinite? Natural selection won't help you here, it can only account for the preservation of features that have already arisen, before the simplest cell arose it played no part in accelerating its creation. You have only random chance to lean on, and unless you claim that infinite universes exist which is a very unscientific claim, there's just no way life could arise by chance.

[Citation needed]

The definition of a scientific theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
Intelligent Design is a well-substantiated explanation of the inability of the natural world to create itself, based on a body of facts (such as those listed above but certainly not limited to them) that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a poorly-defined conglomerate of Common Descent with Natural Selection that fails to provide any real evidence that the later caused the former.

You first.

You've seen just one of the data points I could bring to bear on the issue. Are you scared yet? Are you going to throw up a ridiculous denial? Are you going to just leave this thread and never return? Are you going to accept the truth? Or are you going to actually present real evidence? Of all those options, I find the last to be the least likely.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

If one child doesn't get "some" education, it's magically "the dark ages". Stop spreading FUD.

An obvious compromise for FUDsters like yourself would be this: Keep the old system around for everyone who likes one-size-fits-all government, and allow the rest of us to take, say, 80% of the per-child expense and pay for schools and teachers that we think will do a better job. Poor folks too.

If the school costs less than this amount (most will, because it's an unjustifiably large amount) and if the kids can prove they've learned the standard curriculum material by passing some tests, then the parents can keep half the savings. Schools where the students can't pass the tests end up being ineligible in future years.

This gives everyone a direct monetary incentive to learn the material and keep costs low. The legacy government schools provide the "dark ages" insurance to satisfy you and the rest of the FUDsters. The tests provide proof that the schools aren't just warehousing the children. The poor get a possible new income source. And since the new schools are more-or-less regulated only by the test outcomes, there should be a lot more jobs available for poor folks at the schools -- because they won't need a certification -- and there should be a lot more teachers (or at least "helpers", many of whom will get better and better over time and eventually be promoted to "teacher") per child.

So there you go. Better, cheaper, more freedom, more convenience and flexibility, more jobs for poor folks, more poor folks who suddenly care about education, accountability for results, guarantees all perfectly intact.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[efitton]

I have a feeling we agree much more than we disagree. I consider mathematics and logic the underpinnings of computer science. And while there is a great deal of overlap between math and science, I consider math outside the sciences. It might just be my take on the lack of "scientific method" or that math tends to be more "pure."

So anyhow, I quibble, but I've always thought of the hard sciences: Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.
The soft sciences: Psychology, Sociology, etc.
And then you have math and formal logic living outside the sciences but clearly supporting them.

Re:Post bigotry here

[sumdumass]

I actually understand a lot about both. Perhaps that angers you because you think you identify with one of the other?

However, I wanna give you props for your well defined and articulated argument. Who would ever know that such intelligence could put forth an enlightened argument that boils down to calling someone racist and avoiding the topic altogether. That's a sign of real intelligence in this day and age.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Todd Knarr]

1. There's at least half-a-dozen theories about that, none of which involve some invisible man in the sky. They're still working out which ones hold up and which ones don't. We don't have much good observational data that far back, although the latest round of space-based telescopes are helping fill that in.

2. No, it's not circular. Earth is fine-tuned for life simply because we could only exist if it were, if it weren't we wouldn't be here to talk about it. I'll pull back the poker analogy: you may look at the long odds of being dealt a royal flush and think it's highly unlikely it could happen so the royal flush you're staring in the face must'be been arranged somehow, but that argument falls apart when you remember that there were several million hands dealt and any that weren't royal flushes weren't given to you. We exist on a planet fine-tuned for life not because something fine-tuned it, but because the condition dice were rolled trillions of times, coming up with different conditions each time, and we'd only evolve on the handful that matched Earth's conditions. Had the conditions been different but still feasible for life to exist, we'd've evolved differently and would live in an environment similarly fine-tuned for the way we turned out. Earth isn't fine-tuned for life, the conditions that exist on Earth fine-tuned life to fit them.

3. Yes, indeed they were. And yet when those conditions are replicated, life does in fact evolve. And no, they didn't start with the end result. They started with a chemical brew matching what's known to have existed on early Earth and went from there. And no, as I said the earliest forms of life weren't cellular. Cells are actually a fair ways up the evolutionary ladder. As I said, scientists had already filled in the path from bare packets of DNA on up to full cellular organisms, and encountered a lot of weirdness along the way. The last bit to be filled in was that first step, from a brew of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen to small packets of DNA. The evolution of prokaryotes from that is interesting, but wasn't nearly as much of a challenge as making the jump from a chemical soup to complex organic molecules.

I think your basic problem is that you're starting with a false premise: that natural selection can't create anything new. The problem is that that assumption's been shown to be false time and time again. We already know about mutation and how DNA can be changed, and how those changes result in new genetic traits that didn't exist before. You're stating something must be false that's been observed to be true many many times. Which is why I dismiss most Creationists: it simply isn't possible to discuss the matter with someone who rejects observed reality. Things don't cease to be true just because you find them inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Vancorps]

Interacting with unpleasant people is indeed a skill one learns from school. Social skills are a lot more than just making friends but you can see interacting with your peers, some of which will like or dislike you for no good reason as creepy if you like.

Bullies are alive and well in corporate America, you need to learn how to deal with them at some point. Why not learn among people with which you will have equal footing rather than in corporate America where you start out as a peon.

Also note, I didn't say social skills were the only value of the school system.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Guy Harris]

Try harder.

Really? That's the best you've got? 'We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefore it's likely that we exist.' Presupposing your conclusion is bad form. It's also a logical fallacy.

Apparently you don't understand the weak Anthropic Principle. Hint: it's not "We exist and we came to exist by chance, therefor it's likely that we exist", it's "duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here".

And the evidence that it's "just not possible" is?

Ok, you asked for it. The simplest genome known today has 580000 base pairs. Assuming that the simplest possible genome is 1 percent of that (more accurate predictions run about 60-70 percent of that but I'm being very generous here), and assuming that generating a genome is synonymous with generating a cell which is a massive simplification in your favor, you still need to come up with genetic information with a probability of one in 4^5800.

Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works? [Citation needed].

[Citation needed]

The definition of a scientific theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I want a citation for the "because Evolutionists are scared of it" part of "that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it."

You first.

You've seen just one of the data points I could bring to bear on the issue. Are you scared yet?

No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?

Obligitory Religulous

[Fish (David Trout)]

"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate."

All for the best

[jandersen]

In a way I think we should be happy when this kind of idiocy bubbles to the surface from the festering mire that is politics in the US (and to some etent, elsewhere). I am confident that most people are, on average, fairly sensible and intelligent, and putting the bottomless stupidity of certain people in power on display like this can only benefit us in the long run. That is the thing about reality - it remains real no matter how much some try to deny it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[dunkelfalke]

There were no communist countries in practice. Even USSR was officially "merely" socialist, with communism being a long-term goal.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rohan972]

you can see interacting with your peers, some of which will like or dislike you for no good reason as creepy if you like.

I don't see interacting with your peers as creepy, it's the idea that we need government intervention to learn how to do that.

Bullies are alive and well in corporate America, you need to learn how to deal with them at some point.

I would argue that our school system produces bullies, people who tolerate bullying on others and victims, and is indeed preparing all of them for corporate life. That's mainly what I don't like about it. Look at all the people here who complain about corporations yet work in them. Condemned by conditioning and debt to spend their days toiling for people they despise. Only few escape.

Also note, I didn't say social skills were the only value of the school system.

And note that I didn't disagree with anything else you brought up. It's just that with some kids being bullied to the point of suicide, I think social skills is something the education system needs to prove itself on, not boast about. This Australian state school apparently has reduced bullying significantly by teaching philosophy and logic. http://burandass.eq.edu.au/wcms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=125 If that program had been in place in a school near us, we would have given more consideration to using a state school. I'm not sure that any political party or large corporation really wants too many people applying logic to much other than how to do their job.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

I'm fine with people believing in God

I'm fine with people believing they're Napoleon, I would just like to see them get treatment.

It's gets even more slimy

[dbIII]

So anyone who does not agree with you is part of some conspiracy to do terrible things to children?
Come on, this character you are playing is just not believable at all. Give it up and play a more interesting game since it's already been done as a better parody in the film Idiocracy.

Re:Post bigotry here

[PurplePhase]

Hey, from here they certainly look the same to me since I'm in the opposite corner from Barak and Mitt being a single point away from each other:

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

If the school costs less than this amount (most will, because it's an unjustifiably large amount) and if the kids can prove they've learned the standard curriculum material by passing some tests, then the parents can keep half the savings. Schools where the students can't pass the tests end up being ineligible in future years.

So you hate "the system", but you put your trust in standardized tests? The dissonance there could split atoms, you realize that, yes?

The poor get a possible new income source.

And that, exactly, is the problem. I am speaking from experience, the social security system in my country does provide things like that (not for school, though), and there is quite a controversy going on because some of the poor spend the money intended for their children on alcohol and cigarettes.

there should be a lot more jobs available for poor folks at the schools -- because they won't need a certification

Thanks, but I'll pass. An ex-girlfriend of mine studied to become a teacher. I know what goes into making a teacher. Unfortunately, teacher is one of those jobs where every schmuck thinks he can do a better job, but most have no clue.

The problem with modern school isn't that the teachers suck or that "the system" sucks. Get a fucking clue, man, and stop believing all the home-schooling propaganda. There is some truth on every side of a conflict, and the educated man doesn't look for which side to pick but which truth to find.

There are problems with the current school system, absolutely. Getting out is one way to solve the problems for you. Actually solving the problems is the more difficult, but also more rewarding approach.

One of the primary issues of modern schools is that they are supposed to do so much more than just teaching. If, instead of home-schooling, parents would just bother enough with their kids to give them basic social skills, some breeding and basically not make them total assholes, the school could take care of the teaching. But as it stands, it has to provide all of education, including the breeding / upbringing part.

I can actually prove my point. Can you prove yours? Throughout history, the only approach that has ever resulted in education being provided to the entire population was a centralized school system. No other approach has ever managed to reach everyone, especially the poor.

Look at the statistics I linked to. Home-schoolers are predominantly white, middle or upper class. If you happen to be a poor hispanic, you are a very rare exception. If you aren't, how about you stop thinking that what works for you will work for everyone?

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

Parents do not have the freedom to fuck up their kids lives. Or, rather, they shouldn't.

Part of the job of schools should most certainly be the correction of blatant idiocies and lies forced on kids by their inadequate, religiously-blinded, politically-obsessed parents.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

Parents are free influence their children all they like, that's why home schooling is allowed.

Only in the US where the freedoms of the rich, religious and rightwing to do as they like trump the right of a child to a normal life.

Here in the UK, home schooling is theoretically possible, but almost never happens except in cases of severely medically challenged, behaviourally extreme or mentally ill children, as far as I know.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

Proof yet again that it is impossible to differentiate between a good troll and a genuine libertarian nutbag.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

The only safe choice is to very strictly limit government power, so when unworthy people get elected, they can't hurt anyone.

That is a fucking stupid argument when it is a government who will, for example, launch the nuclear weapons that start WW3.

I know libertarians think that if you shrink government enough it will disappear, but by that stage you'll just have mega-corporations running things instead, without even the smallest democratic control over what they do.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

I thought freedom was the purpose.

What does "making a difference" mean anyway? Pol Pot made a difference.

What exactly does "freedom" mean when you're talking about education? The freedom of a child not to be told what to do? The freedom of a parent to insist their precious snowflake is only allowed to read stories about Baby Jesus? The overall increase in freedom resulting from an intelligent, educated population?

The Pol Pot comment is simply risible in its attempt to yoke genocide alongside any form of government. I suppose you'd have used Hitler instead, except that (a) Godwin's law is too well known and (b) you secretly admire him.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tehcyder]

There aren't many (any?) examples of permanent, stable societies.

There are no examples of a human being living forever. Therefore there's no point in worrying about public health, medicine, crime, war, education, science, culture, disease or anything else as we're all going to die in the end.

Arsehole.

Re:There Will Be No Impact

[tehcyder]

Of course, the starting point is a crock of shit, but if you take it as a given, the rest is actually logical.

So what? If you take the Nazis' belief in The Master Race and extrapolate it "logically" to the Holocaust what does that prove?

The Big Bang Theory???

[Dabido]

But ... but ... it's one of my favourite shows!!!!!

Re:Post bigotry here

[RaceProUK]

Why is only the crazies that stick out with any group?

Because they're noisy.

Re:Post bigotry here

[RaceProUK]

Do you have a spare few hundred thousand dollars?

Re:Newsflash: Religion != myth oriented Christiani

[tehcyder]

It's entirely possible to have a well developed sense of the divine (without knowing exactly what it is and understanding that it may be entirely neurological) and be entirely free of Christianity, Islam, or any other fan club affiliation that requires an unproven belief in invisible friends, holy war, talking snakes, ritual blood drinking and/or body eating or additional taxation in the form of tithing.

Yes, but LSD is illegal.

Alcohol isn't illegal but you still get that "oceanic" feeling of universal connectedness and love just the same, plus it's much less likely you'll suffer a psychotic breakdown in the short term.

Re:All religion is mental illness

[tehcyder]

Religion isn't a mental illness, it's a coping mechanism. Look up terror management theory

Fine, it's a coping mechanism for scared children. Adults should have grown out of it.

Re:Post bigotry here

[coinreturn]

So let's make government small enough so U.S. Congressmen's opinions don't matter.

A free people in a free country wouldn't care what some Congressman thought about evolution.

Actually, you should make the government LARGER if you want said Congressman's opinions not to matter - it's called dilution.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[tehcyder]

I don't have a problem in teaching both evolution and creationism as theories

Agreed, children should all get a proper history of philosophy/religion/science education. Creationism deserves a brief mention as a theory discredited around the middle of the Nineteenth Century, and therefore of interest mainly to historians.

None of this has anything to do with teaching current science.

Re:Post bigotry here

[MachineShedFred]

And posting "the Christians in the US are ignorant of this fact" isn't ignorant in itself?

You can't say that 100 million people think the same thing about ANYTHING.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Thanks, but I'll pass. ... If you aren't, how about you stop thinking that what works for you will work for everyone?

That was the first point in the plan. Go ahead and pass. If it doesn't work for you, go back to the government system and the people there will continue to go through the motions until they get their pensions.

You appear to have no substantive criticism of my plan at all. And yet, as expected, you still want to say no to all the parents and kids who want a better education.

I find your lack of faith.. disturbing

[claar]

Wow, as a Christian reading at +3, I've never seen such a intolerant, hatred-filled discussion on Slashdot.

Reddit, sure, it's typical and expected, but wow.. my heart sank with comment after comment.

It won't be long now before Christianity is actively, brutally, persecuted in this country. Get ready, Christians and others, if you can.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

You appear to have no substantive criticism of my plan at all. And yet, as expected, you still want to say no to all the parents and kids who want a better education.

Your plan isn't a better system, it's the removal of the system and the unsubstantiated hope that somehow, magically, everything will work out.

I am split regarding home-schooling, respectively mandatory public school attendance. I do think that there is merit in a public school system, but I also see the current one is failing us. I'm not sure dropping out is the right solution, but I understand every parent who doesn't want to wait for the solution to appear because the time their kid has to get a good education is limited.

But your plan as presented, does nothing to solve the actual problem. It only makes it easier for those with the resources to avoid the issue. My original point still stands: We can assume that there will be a public school system in the future. If 100% or 90% or 50% of the children attend it doesn't matter, what matters is that it exists. If it exists, it should be good. Thus, the problems with the current system need to be solved, and home-schooling doesn't improve the system, it only removes people from it

Absolutely!

[Safety Cap]

I know lots of athiests who are religious about their beliefs (or lack of beliefs, depending on how you want to slice it).

Atheists are religious the same same way "off" is a TV Station.

Sorry, but you are ignorant: you don't know what the word "religion" means. Now, if you were to say your atheist friends were "adamant," "aggrandized," "animated" or "galvanized," you would effuse the appearance of knowledge.

Re:Post bigotry here

[danaris]

That's not because the concept of a school system is bad. That's because our current implementation is flawed. We need a more even distribution of funds to schools, rather than having each school being funded primarily by the district it's in.

BC does this - schools get the same amount of money per kid. And "poor schools", which is a misnomer, because the schools are now the same as anywhere else, get more aid time. The students still do substantially worse than in better neighborhoods.

Poor students do badly because they have poor parents. They get worse nutrition due to bad dietary choices. They do not have enforced bed times. Their parents don't value education. Many of them don't value the hard work that is necessary for success. A good percentage of the kids are born with medical problems due to their mother's drug usage, that cause lifelong behaviour and learning problems.

Obviously none of these are 100% true, but they are enough true that on average the students of poor families just do a lot worse academically than the students of wealthier families, regardless of the school or how much money is spent on them.

And how long has BC been doing this?

Like I said, it's a generational problem. You can't solve it with any one simple change in a short period of time—which doesn't mean that we should give up on the long-term solutions.

Dan Aris

Scary that this country is so close to us

[weathered]

With people like that working in the government of the USA, should Canada be voting to move to a different part of the world?

Re:Post bigotry here

[danaris]

And if you have public schools, then having a system for them is a good thing, because otherwise those who can do the least about it will once again draw the short sticks.

There's that argument again: We have to maintain this inefficient, extremely expensive, oppressive system that keeps poor kids from getting a reasonable education because ... otherwise poor kids won't get an education.

So do you, in fact, believe that it is a good idea to just abandon those who are currently unable to afford a top-flight education to be a permanent poor caste? Never able to gain access to any education, eking out only the most miserable living not because of anything they have done or not done, but because of the socioeconomic stratum they were born into?

Dan Aris

Re:Post bigotry here

[danaris]

An obvious compromise for FUDsters like yourself would be this: Keep the old system around for everyone who likes one-size-fits-all government, and allow the rest of us to take, say, 80% of the per-child expense and pay for schools and teachers that we think will do a better job. Poor folks too.

But that doesn't "keep the old system around," and it certainly doesn't do anything to fix the problems with it. What it does is give everyone with the money to pay for the rest of what a private-school education costs large chunks of money that would otherwise have gone to maintaining and improving the public schools. (Because if you think that you can realistically buy a measurably better education at a private school in the vast majority of the country for what public schools spend per student, you're kidding yourself. Especially if we're talking about public schools in poor districts.) A significant percentage of those able to comfortably afford the difference between the voucher and the actual price of a private school could have afforded it without the voucher, so all they gain is a little extra dough from the government.

And what happens to those at or below the median income level? Well, the quality of education their kids get goes down. Yes, there are fewer kids in the classroom now, so the student:teacher ratio drops—at first. But then you realize that not only do the schools still have the same size buildings for so many fewer students—and so much less money to keep them maintained—but the number of teachers is also more than can be maintained on the smaller budget. So the class sizes go up again. Probably higher than they were before, since the overhead hasn't gone down any.

Anyone who thinks that flinging wide the gates of school choice and encouraging everyone in America to pick The Best Option For Their Kid is actually going to provide a good education for everyone—or even a better education for anyone but the wealthy—is deluded, and either buying the propaganda of the far right or choosing not to see the true costs because they need to believe that pulling money out of public schools to give to private schools is the best thing for everyone.

Dan Aris

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Golden_Rider]

I suppose it depends on the exact definition of theory, it can mean a well established explanation, also (2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation. But, you are right, in that creationists attempt to place their (weak) theory (or postulate) on the same level as evolution that is well tested; thus trying to gain credibility by association. The theories that you mention all started out as 'postulates' but were then found to be supported by the evidence, make good predictions, etc, creationism does not travel far down this road.

In the scientific sense, creatonism is no theory, but evolution is a well-established theory.

Re:Post bigotry here

[residieu]

God just put all the evidence supporting evolution and the billions of years old universe there to mess with us. He's really quite a jerk.

Re:Post bigotry here

[RockDoctor]

They would see it as their religious duty to pursue you to hell to continue with your torment. Since that would involve sins of pride ("I'm the right man for this job!"), arrogance ("Who does this Ghod dude think he is, letting those apostates off like that!") and lots more ... they're already likely bound to meet you anyway.

What's that smell? Damn - eschatology on my shoe!

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

You're focused on serving the system. Therefore, anything that doesn't serve the system isn't worth thinking about. Will something that doesn't serve the system help kids? That's completely not the point. Helping kids without serving the system is not the point.

I want to help kids escape the failing system and find a place they can learn. Education reform within the system has had 30-40 years to try hundreds of different things. I don't see why we should sacrifice any more children waiting for the next hundred schemes to fail. Someday maybe it will be enough for you.

Until then, I don't see much basis for discussion.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

But that doesn't "keep the old system around," and it certainly doesn't do anything to fix the problems with it.

I don't think it can be fixed. People have tried hundreds of things in hundreds of places and the schools are still bad for poor kids in poor neighborhoods. Why should we believe in this elusive "fix"?

Because if you think that you can realistically buy a measurably better education at a private school in the vast majority of the country for what public schools spend per student, you're kidding yourself.

There are lots of places where public schools cost more than $12000 per child per year. Some spend more than $18000. Get a few families together and they can easily pay for a teacher for 8-10 children. And that's just the simplest example. Government schools are very, very expensive, so competing with them on price and quality is no problem.

Anyone who thinks that flinging wide the gates of school choice and encouraging everyone in America to pick The Best Option For Their Kid is actually going to provide a good education for everyone—or even a better education for anyone but the wealthy—is deluded...

Wealthy people already get a good education for their kids. They move to wealthy neighborhoods. All the senior teachers want to teach at their schools. Poor kids in poor neighborhoods get stuck with whoever is left. This is the current system.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Lord Kano]

Arabic speaking Christians say Allah when referring to the father portion of the Christian Holy Trinity.

Smart move if there's any chance of them being overheard.

No. It's just the arabic word for God. Despite what you've heard, Muslims and Christians get along fairly well outside of areas of disputed land.

LK

Re:Post bigotry here

[Tom]

So accepting a reality is "serving the system" to you?

Tell me that you don't agree that if we simply closed down the public school system today, lots of children would not be given an education anymore. Mostly because their parents are already working two jobs and don't have the time nor energy to also be teachers.

I want to help kids escape the failing system and find a place they can learn.

And I'm telling you that your way works for some, but it won't work for all. And you can't leave those for whom it doesn't work stranded.

Re:Post bigotry here

[danaris]

Wealthy people already get a good education for their kids. They move to wealthy neighborhoods. All the senior teachers want to teach at their schools. Poor kids in poor neighborhoods get stuck with whoever is left. This is the current system.

And what you're proposing is to simply widen the gap, so that the poor children get practically no education, and the wealthy children get an even better one.

I think that's a dumb plan that's the opposite of fixing anything.

Dan Aris

Re:Post bigotry here

[tbannist]

Jews, Chrisitans, Muslims and Mormons all worship the same god, they just disagree on which prophets are true prophets and consequently what that God actually wants. Jews believe that Moses was the ultimate prophet and don't recognize Jesus. Mohammed or Smith as real prophets. Christians believe that Jesus was the ultimate prophet and that Mohammed and Smith weren't real prophets. Muslims believe that Mohammed was the ultimate prophet and that Smith wasn't a real prophet. Mormons believe that Smith was the ultimate prophet and Mohammed wasn't a real prophet.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Kohath]

Well that's all great and everything, but I'm really curious about what your proposed alternative is? I hear calls for 'small government' all the time, but I wonder what you would replace all the functions of 'big government' with?

"All" of the functions? Nothing should replace all the functions. Some of that stuff is pointless. Other stuff should be left the same.

For instance, who would fix the roads?

State and local governments, contracting road builders. Just like now, but with less US Federal Government involvement. Because roads are local and regional, and our national road system is completed.

Schools would be what? Community-run, so that they teach only what the local community happens to think. Grow up in (please, no geographical corrections!) the bible belt and expect to hear nothing about Evolution during your education.

Whatever. Why don't you mind your own business? You teach your children whatever you want, and they'll teach their children whatever they want.

Or are you endorsing censoring content and imprisoning teachers for teaching beliefs other than yours?

Yes, every government has eventually fallen. Except for the ones that haven't, but of course they just haven't fallen yet. And thus your prediction is always true.

Hooray for things that are true.

Your notion that home-schooling is remotely even a possibility for 90% of the population is a bit strange too, unless I'm mis-understanding your suggestions. It's a bit like suggesting that everyone should learn to maintain their own car, and that the garage down the street is an instrument of oppression.

I've noticed that everyone has their choice of many different garages, with no government forcing them to pay for the big government garage whether they get good service there or not. Garages don't seem oppressive -- if I don't like one, I just don't go there, I can take my business somewhere else. The education system is not like that at all.

You talked a little earlier (or later, I've been scrolling around alot) about your school experiences not being happy ones. I'm sorry to hear that, my experience was different. I had good teachers, and once I found which things I was actually interested in I learned alot. University was even better. My experience of the education system here in New Zealand, now that I have three young children in Primary School, is that the teachers are universally motivated, passionate, hard-working and that I'd damn glad to get the kids out of the house every day.

Yeay for New Zealand. I hear a lot of governments in other countries tend to work a lot better than the US. We have unique problems here.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

1. "*There are* at least half-a-dozen theories about that" - None of which (besides my own) have any scientific proof or make logical sense. Infinite universes? Don't be ridiculous.
"none of which involve some invisible man in the sky" - Yep. My theory does not involve an invisible man in the sky.
"They're still working out which ones hold up and which ones don't." - And so far none have held up.
"We don't have *any* good observational data that far back" FTFY, we don't and can't see anything before the big bang because nothing physical existed existed.

2. Ok, I get it, you say that the odds that a particular planet (such as Earth) is fine tuned for life aren't important and the real question is whether any planet in the universe could support life. Well I've got news for you. The chance that any planet in the universe can support life is exactly what I'm referring to, the chance that a particular planet can support life times the estimated number of planets in the universe. It's still infinitesimally small. I'm saying that without God's intervention no planet in the entire universe would be able to support life. The only alternative is the assertion that there are an infinite number of universes, which is less scientific than Intelligent Design by far.

3. "Yes, indeed they were. [Citation needed] And yet when those conditions are replicated, life does in fact evolve. [Citation needed] And no, they didn't start with the end result. They started with a chemical brew matching what's known to have existed on early Earth and went from there. [Citation needed] And no, as I said the earliest forms of life weren't cellular. [Citation needed] Cells are actually a fair ways up the evolutionary ladder. As I said, scientists had already filled in the path from bare packets of DNA on up to full cellular organisms [Citation needed], and encountered a lot of weirdness along the way. The last bit to be filled in was that first step, from a brew of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen to small packets of DNA [Citation needed]. The evolution of prokaryotes from that is interesting, but wasn't nearly as much of a challenge as making the jump from a chemical soup to complex organic molecules [Citation needed]."

So many claims, so little evidence.

4? "I think your basic problem is that you're starting with a false premise: that natural selection can't create anything new. The problem is that that assumption's been shown to be false time and time again." Cite one example where natural selection has been observed to create new genetic information. You'll probably come up with something about finches or antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but neither of those are actually a case of new information. All observed effects of Natural Selection have been found to regard the expression of genes (Larger and smaller finch beaks) or the destruction of genes (destroying the proteins antibiotics exploit), not a single case of Natural Selection generating new information exists. By definition Natural Selection only works on functional elements, pre-functional proteins are only acted upon by random mutation or conversely intelligently guided mutation.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

Notice that those are the same issues from ten, twenty years ago. You've been had, bub.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

I see you forgot about the 25,000 troops that remain in Iraq (but they aren't "soldiers", like our boys in Vietnam were "advisers"). And Yemen. And Oman. And Libya. And Somalia. And Pakistan.

Wake up. Barack Obama started more wars than Bush did. They are the same. Romney will be the same. Everyone that comes from the back rooms of either party will be the same. Anyone that is grassrooted in will be gotten to. Vote for a third party if you want freedom and peace to return to the world.

Re:Post bigotry here

[tmosley]

That only applies to Christians. The penalties for violation of the commandments are waived for those who accept Christ, but the laws remain. Thus, if an atheist or hindu dared to violate those commandments, a true believer would kill them, perhaps after attempting to convert them.

Note also that a true believer would read and memorize the entire bible, perhaps to the extent that everything else is ignored. If I had the word of a true God who had power over my eternal soul, I would do everything I could to learn more about him, because a. that is awesome and amazing, and b. I REALLY don't want to get on his bad side. But no-one does that, except for a few crazy people. They don't believe. They just believe that they SHOULD believe, and justify and rationalize everything according to that stated belief, even though it is totally insane, and their actions run totally contrary to those of a rational person who learned of the true existence of such a world changing fact.

Re:Post bigotry here

[rthille]

While I certainly have problems with much of Obama's stance on civil liberties and stacking the treasury with Wall St. regulars, to say that he and Romney are the same is idiotic.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

"duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it *wasn't*, we wouldn't be here". - You forgot the part where it conflicts with anything I said. Yes, the universe is tuned for life. Now what fine-tuned it if not God? "The anthropic principle" is not a valid answer: it is an observation, not a cause.

"Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works?" - There's more than one, but there's certainly a lot less than 4^4800. Say there are 10^60 possible combinations (much more than the number of atoms in the earth and a huge overestimate), in that case you still have 4^4700 to deal with. Have fun!

"I want a citation for the 'because Evolutionists are scared of it' part of 'that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.'" They are scared of the idea that anything supernatural has an impact on their lives, and they deal with this fear by denying the possibility of God's existence. It almost never comes to the surface due to the deeply ingrained denial, but how else do you account for the repeated attempts of evolutionists to push ID out of science when it is obviously valid?

"No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?" I'm just hoping you'll see reason. It is right to fear God, for he has power over everything - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). If you accept God's rule you have no need to fear for you are living in harmony with him, but if you deny him you have reason to fear.

By the way, I was completely right about you not presenting evidence. More like ridiculous denial, though it's a bit more slippery than that in this case.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[Guy Harris]

"duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it *wasn't*, we wouldn't be here". - You forgot the part where it conflicts with anything I said. Yes, the universe is tuned for life. Now what fine-tuned it if not God?

Well, people have come up with a bunch of ideas over time. Or maybe it's whoever who set up the simulation in which we live, and maybe he/she/it/they live in another simulation, etc....

"The anthropic principle" is not a valid answer: it is an observation, not a cause.

...or maybe it just is. There is no inherent reason why there has to be an Answer(TM). Some people may want to hear an Answer, but that's another matter.

"Because there's only one configuration of the simplest possible genome that works?" - There's more than one, but there's certainly a lot less than 4^4800. Say there are 10^60 possible combinations (much more than the number of atoms in the earth and a huge overestimate), in that case you still have 4^4700 to deal with. Have fun!

Actually, the search space is much smaller, and there's a lot of stuff in the primeval oceans, so with massively parallel search of the search space....

"I want a citation for the 'because Evolutionists are scared of it' part of 'that is rejected out of hand because Evolutionists are scared of it.'" They are scared of the idea that anything supernatural has an impact on their lives, and they deal with this fear by denying the possibility of God's existence.

That's not a citation, that's an assertion. No good reason has been presented for me to believe that assertion.

It almost never comes to the surface due to the deeply ingrained denial, but how else do you account for the repeated attempts of evolutionists to push ID out of science when it is obviously valid?

How about "it's not obviously valid"?

"No. What is this obsession you have with fear? Are you projecting here?" I'm just hoping you'll see reason.

Try exhibiting some reason; that'll make it easier to see it.

It is right to fear God, for he has power over everything - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). If you accept God's rule you have no need to fear for you are living in harmony with him, but if you deny him you have reason to fear.

Assuming that he exists and is pissy about people not believing in him. I've seen no evidence for or against the former; I suppose it's not inconceivable that, if he exists, he's the latter, but it seems rather, well, petty for somebody who creates universes.

Re:Post bigotry here

[Alsee]

Flying Spaghetti Monster is composed of a particularly fine capellini, so those 'weight of the pasta' arguments are nothing but sacrilegious bunk.

-

Yes, I'm feeding trolls...

[BevanFindlay]

On what evidence do you base that opinion? Go and find a top theology school and see whether you can beat them at philosophy and logic, then let me know if you still think that. I know people who are rational about religion and people who are irrational; the same applies for atheism (and most other subjects - politics for example! :-)

Generally though, those who say they can't see any rationality on the other side are the ones who either haven't talked to the other side or who aren't being rational themselves. I'm guessing you probably haven't met many smart Christians then. ;-)

Re:Post bigotry here

[Hognoxious]

Muslims and Christians get along fairly well outside of areas of disputed land.

That's like saying Germany and France have never had wars, except in Europe.

Re:Sheep on Slashdot

[gottabeme]

Utter nonsense. Atheism has no dogma, no directions or rules with which to "create" a government or guide governmental decisions.

Of course it does, it just makes its own. Without any foundation for ethics or morality, it creates its own utilitarian dogma, directions, and rules. If nothing else, natural selection rears its ugly head in that those who are able to take and maintain power over the weak survive longer and with a higher quality of life than those whom they control. cf. Communism, Nazism, facism, totalitarianism, etc. Atheism is the ideal condition for such evil governments. Look at their history and see how they actively spread atheism among their populaces. Without God, there is no reason that the strong should not exploit the weak to their fullest advantage. Indeed, without God, one could say that they would be foolish to not do so.

That's a far cry from the evangelical nature of Christianity, which seeks power, influence and control by its very nature.

You have confused the misdeeds of those who claimed to be acting in the name of Christ with the theology, ethics, and morals espoused by Christ himself. For example, it's written in the Bible that one should submit to governments, and Jesus himself said, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Jesus never advocated forced conversion of anyone. Indeed, such is not true conversion and is meaningless. The job of evangelism is to make the message heard, to literally preach the good news--not to force anyone to accept the message or abide by it. On the contrary, it is human nature which seeks power, influence, and control--not the nature of God.

There is HUGE correlation between Christianity and acts committed specifically in the name of Christianity -- Christianity is a great deal more like communism than atheism is. Kill people for the idea? Check. Force them to comply? Check. Invade other countries? Check. State-directed action against citizens not within (or who even LOOK like they're not within) the fold? Check. Loudmouthed leaders who get up and make blustery speeches the rabble are supposed to cheer? Check. Bullshit dogma that lays out the ground rules for behavior? Check.

The problem is that, regardless of the truth about Christ, man is fallen, broken, and sinful, and so men have distorted the Truth and used it for their own gain. This fact does not, however, invalidate the Truth. It is simply a logical fallacy to say that, because some people who claim Christ have done evil things, Christ or his message must be false.

And NONE of that is true for atheism.

What atheism are you thinking of? Communism (China, Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, etc) is just one example of explicitly atheistic government which 1) has killed many, many people for their goals; 2) has forced many, many people to comply; 3) has invaded many other countries; 4) has committed horrific acts against dissenting citizens; 5) has loudmouthed leaders who must be cheered (e.g. parades, statues) and who must not be spoken against; 6) has rules for behavior which favor not the people but the few in power over them.

Too much to wrap your head around, I know. Don't worry, no one really expects it of you.

Ah, back to the condescension again. It's easier than arguing rationally, isn't it? (See, I can do it too!)

Religion is a toxin that invades minds that have no defense in the form of critical thinking. It won't go away until we improve education, not to mention a few other things.

Not to mention the fact that many of the most well-educated, critical thinkers in history were ardent believers in God. That's not a convenient truth for you, is it?

There is no human who is not religious.

That... that's just stupid. None so blind as those who will not see, chum.

It's

The Physicist's god...

[number6x]

If you study the natural world, the universe in all of its wonder it is easy to be filled with a sense of awe. The kind of feeling people often only experience through religion.

Anyone who seriously devotes time to studying the world, and chooses to believe in a 'god', would never think that the 'god' who authored the universe is the same 'god' that is supposed to have authored the Bible, or any other religious text.

If there is anything that would mark a creator, it would be that they were always 100% consistent. I'm not claiming there is a creator, but if there is that creator is always self-consistent and never contradictory. I don't think that can be applied to who ever or what ever wrote the Bible.

Sorry, 100% self consistent and an inoordinate fondness for beetles.

Re:Post bigotry here

[khelms]

So basically, religions are like distros?

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

I honesty don't have time to tear up your post completely as I have a ton of homework this weekend, but here are the best problems:

"duh, of course the universe is tuned such that life can exist, if it *wasn't*, we wouldn't be here". - You forgot the part where it conflicts with anything I said. Yes, the universe is tuned for life. Now what fine-tuned it if not God?

Well, people have come up with a bunch of ideas over time [wikipedia.org]. Or maybe it's whoever who set up the simulation in which we live [simulation-argument.com], and maybe he/she/it/they live in another simulation, etc....

"The anthropic principle" is not a valid answer: it is an observation, not a cause.

...or maybe it just is. There is no inherent reason why there has to be an Answer(TM). Some people may want to hear an Answer, but that's another matter.

lolwut? A complete lack of an answer. And if you don't want to search for or provide answers then get out of my scientific discussion.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

A link to someone with an actual argument! If only you had formulated it and it wasn't based on erroneous assumptions I would be impressed. Here's why the argument doesn't stand: "the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection. " - Assumes that Natural Selection can drive evolution and abiogenesis. It cannot. "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine). In other words, Natural Selection takes helpful traits that already exist and spreads them. It does NOT create new traits. It CANNOT. Only random chance can create new traits when you deny intelligent intervention, and random chance isn't up to the job of generating life. "For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long." To the best I can tell the peptide he's referring to is "A self-replicating peptide." which, while interesting, is not actually self replicating. It merely binds the two halves of itself together, so to replicate it must be supplied with a constant supply of duplicates of its halves. To replicate just once it needs 64 specified amino acids (iself and two halves), for the second generation it needs another 64 (four more halves) and so on. Interesting, but absolutely useless for the origin of life. No real self-replicating entity smaller than a cell has ever been discovered, and if it has it is no doubt much larger than 32 amino acids. So everything that rests on his 32-acid estimate is complete nonsense.

Assuming that he exists and is pissy about people not believing in him.

The evidence that he exists is precisely what I'm arguing, and "pissy" isn't exactly the right word here. More like righteous wrath. Say you created a robot and made it self-aware (That's not possible, but for the sake of analogy assume it is). Instead of being grateful and giving you a good name, it spits oil in your face and runs around doing evil. It denies your role in its creation, saying that it was inevitable. Now, if you truly love your creation like God loves us you'd allow it to have a second chance and return to being good, but if it refuses you'll destroy it before it can bring yet more shame upon you and do yet more evil. It's not that God gets "pissy," it's that we completely defy his purpose for us and thus we deserve to be destroyed.

Re:Newsflash: Religion != myth oriented Christiani

[badkarmadayaccount]

Salivorin A isn't, mostly, neither is the Hawaiian Woodrose and its seeds, Morning Glory as well.

Re:text books shall be accurate

[DroidFreak]

This hypothetical robot can do whatever it chooses, it is self aware and has free will. The hypothetical you made it our of love.

Just as a father loves his children, so God loves his creations even when they disobey him. He loves them enough to give them a second chance, a third chance, and as many chances as they need to turn to him but if they never turn to him he will not tolerate their indefinite disobedience.