Slashdot Mirror
Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos'
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Travis Gettys reports that creationist Danny Falkner appeared Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show" to complain that the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths. "I don't recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it's based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that," said Falkner of Answers In Genesis who also complained that Tyson showed life arose from simple organic compounds without mentioning that some believe that's not possible. "I was struck in the first episode where he talked about science and how, you know, all ideas are discussed, you know, everything is up for discussion – it's all on the table – and I thought to myself, 'No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem." To be fair, there aren't a ton of shows on TV specifically about creationism says William Hamby. "However, there are entire networks devoted to Christianity, and legions of preachers with all the airtime they need to denounce evolution. Oh, and there was that major movie from a few years back. And there's a giant tax-payer subsidized theme park in Kentucky. And the movie about Noah. And entire catalogs of creationist movies and textbooks you can own for the low low price of $13.92.""
TV is not a government entity, you want equal time, pay up. You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business. You want your time in the spotlight during prime time, go out and make a show that doesn't suck, then pay for its spot to air. Its quite simple. Quit with the 'entitlement' mentality already.
Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Equal time to creationists on Cosmos, equal time for actual knowledge (read: science) on all televangelist broadcasts. That sounds like a fair compromise.
not a debate you would have anywhere in europe, not even in Rome....
the vast majority in europe would just start crying in laughter at the idea of creationism, because it's just so incredibly infantile...
Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to follow Sagan's old show and lines of reasoning. This means the worst is yet to come for "special creationists".
If we demanded equal time in church gatherings. I mean fair is fair right. So you creationists wouldn't object to that? In that case I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem.
Because Cosmos is a science show.
Yaknow, I used to think the Two Minutes Hate from Orwell's 1984 was the least realistic, most suspension-of-disbelief breaking part of the book. It just didn't make any sense and the idea of people getting up in front of others to show how much they hated Big Brother's enemies was just ridiculous. But now that I'm older, hell...what else is this story other than despising those who think differently than we do? We write something to show how much we support the prevailing point of view and then move on with the rest of our day. And keep an eye out for that bastard Emmanuel Goldstein, you never know where his agents are.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You got the wrong network, for made up stories you'd have to turn to Fox News.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The quickest way to discredit a moron is to hand him a microphone.
It's fairly easy to show how the eye evolved. That's been debunked ages ago.
Actually the eye is a perfect proof that it WAS evolution rather than creation. Because our eye is perfected for seeing under water, a smart creator (and I guess God is supposedly not an idiot according to creationists) would have created an eye that's better suited to seeing on land rather than increasing the work overhead for the brain to compensate for the shortcomings of the eye we have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Religion, magic, witchcraft, and other hocus pocus have no part in science.
If they want to sell the fiction that 'flu strains don't change and pests can't get resistant to pesticides ...
That is not what creationists believe. They accept that organisms can adapt to their environment. They just deny that these adaptions can lead to entirely new species.
Believing that something is not possible is not good enough grounds to warrant inclusion in anything. There are reasons why some things are not discussed on shows about science, and that is because they are either irrelevant to the subject at hand or proven to be untrue. I don't know where this idea of every point of view being equal has arisen from, but it's fucking terrible in its ignorance. The whole reason every moron and his puppet made of hair and excrement wants their claims discussed as an equal to scientific claims is because of science's epistemic integrity. If their ideas had epistemic integrity of their own, they wouldn't care about science as an authority.
"No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem."
Nice try, except scientists have considered creationism. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould has written screeds analyzing creationism scientifically. The issue isn't a lack of consideration, but rather that such scientists have thoroughly refuted creationism. I actually wouldn't mind a series scientifically analyzing creationism in principle, perhaps along the lines of some of Gould's work, but I somehow doubt that such a public flaying would satisfy the good folks at AiG.
Naw, the eye thing is passe for creationists. Their new tactic is claiming that "intelligence only comes from intelligence". It's from the book "Darwin's Doubt" from the Discovery Institute. Big best-seller on the god-botherer circuit.
Here's the way the argument goes (I'm not kidding): "A human brain is like a computer. And only intelligent entities can design computers. Thus...Intelligent Designer!" In other words, "there is too much information in DNA for it to have come from anywhere but the mind of Jehovah because screw Hindus".
Yep. That's it. Game over. Pwned. Until you suggest that it means the Intelligent Designer must have also come from a previous Intelligent Designer so we're looking at polytheism all the way down. Then, the argument rapidly devolves into, "The Christian Deity is the only possible explanation".
I'm telling you, I prefer the Young Earth creationists, who at least put their mythology right up front. They're honest about "God made it". These ID people are trying to subvert reason and science to get to the same place as the Young Earthers in the most dishonest way possible. All while pushing this notion of "teach the controversy", which is basically code for allowing people to proselytize for a particular religion in public schools.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Noah?
This Noah?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt19...
With Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, visual effects galore and explosions - that Noah?
Yeah it may have some connections to the story of Noah, but then '300' had some connections to the actual story of the Battle of Thermopylae.. I don't think either should be taken too particularly seriously as exemplary of the source material.
It's hard to get equal time considering the material.
"And now we will take some time to discussing the evidence that supports the theory of creation.
(long uncomfortable pause)
Well, that's done. Back to science!"
Which is like saying you can only add 1s together to get small numbers (aka "microevolution) but not big numbers (aka "macroevolution"). It's an absurd position. New species arise through the accumulation of lots of small changes not the silly "chimp giving birth to a human" fallacious argument that creationists spew.
I'd *love* to see that.
The FCC could force religious broadcasting channels to give equal time to well founded scientific shows. Like, science without any sort of religion involved at all. Every television show with religious content can be forced to contain an equal part science, presented by a person with a scientific background and no theology is allowed in that part.
That would pretty much derail every religious show broadcast.
I know what they want though. They want half of the Cosmos show, so they can preach during it. I wouldn't watch it, if half the content is ancient mythology.
I wonder if we could extend this to everything on television (cable or broadcast). Then we could have a perfect clusterfuck.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The fun thing about "inteligent creation" is that the argument is "xyw is too complicated to evolve "naturally" it needs something even more complicated to "make it"...
Of course how the "more complicated stuff" was created does not need any explanation...
But a least it gives some arguments for a compationate God, since s/he does not smite them in anger for keeping on telling him, her, it how to do its job...
that the only reasonable explanation for the lack of equal time is that God doesn't want the creationists to have it. How could a just and righteous creator hang his PR department out to dry like this? One might make the mistake of thinking that it is all just bullshit and that we reasonable people won't gain anything by engaging with the creationists...
The dissenters should just commission their own series, perhaps called Creation.
It opens with a bright blue eyed boy of about 4 years old, sitting on his knees on the carpet, toy rocket in hand, talking to what is presumably his great-grandfather who is seated in a comfortable chair, sipping from a cup of tea in his right hand, a copy of the Holy Bible on one of the armrests. "Grampy," the boy asks, "where did the world and all the stars come from?"
The man puts his other hand on the bible. "Boy," he says, "the answer to that and all other questions is right in here!" He puts the cup of tea on a side table and picks up the bible, thumbing through it, then closing it and holding it up in front of the boy. "It's all here because God wanted it to be here. He said: Let there be light! And there was light. And the next 5 days He spent building everything you see, including us. And on the 7th day He rested."
The boy ponders over this for a second, then frowns. "But Grampy... then where did God come from?" The man's face turns into an angry scowl, he lifts up the bible high into the air as if to strike down the young man with it... then screams "Blasphemy! How dare you ask such questions! Off you go, get out of my eyes!"
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
What about *equal* tax exemption status for Science organization that the Churches have been enjoying?
Creationists have all the air time and chance to express their views anyone could ever wish for. Equal time, what a bunch of crap.
As for the "our views aren't being considered", this is a SCIENCE SHOW, it deals with scientific evidence. The day creationists can show ANY EVIDENCE that the Earth is young, that life forms didn't progressively evolve from simpler to more complex, that there is no single unifying tree of life, etc then they can complain that they haven't gotten a proper scientific airing. Given that they have NOTHING, no contrary testable hypothesis, no evidence that stands up to any scrutiny, etc they've got no leg to stand on. Its too bad for them that their Flying Spaghetti Monster is not science, but it isn't our problem.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
They'd get less than that. There are roughly 18 different denominations. So an hour long broadcast (with no ads, intro or credits) would give 3.33 minutes/ea.
You can't just group "Christian" together, as there are many major denominations. It gets simpler if you combine them farther back in their history. I'm pretty sure if a block of time was given to "Abrahamic religions", that would cause a holy war, as that includes Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai.
You can't just base it on major denominations. There are roughly 313 groups of religions, which would cut the 60 minute show down to about 11.5 seconds each.
But not every church of every sect agrees on everything. So we may have to break it down to the IRS recognized religious organizations. All 1.8 million of them. So each one would get a whopping 0.002 seconds. So not even a single frame.
The author of the article may want his church included, but so will the Westborough Baptist Church, Church of Scientology, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of Euthenasia, and Church of the Subgenius. (I think those last two are still recognized as religious organizations for tax purposes) .
As an ordained minister of the First Church of Smythe, the Universal Life Church, and others I printed out online, I will need multiple timeslots to represent the beliefs of my followers, which may or may not be consistent with any other organization.
Or, they can all just go do their own thing on their own dime.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
There's no crocoduck. You can't explain that!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I've given up on the name of most channels being accurate. None of them really show what they claim. Hell, even the guide channel isn't just a guide, it's a commercial with some guide information on it.
I go to Comedy Central for News, and Fox news for comedy. Syfy is B movies and wrestling, and Discovery/History/A&E have shows about guys who make duck calls, and wackadoodles talking about aliens. CSPAN is to see rich white politicians argue for their purchased opinions, if they bother to show up to work. Well, no other channel can you watch a mostly empty stage for hours on end. It's almost like reading Slashdot and expecting News for Nerds.
The only channel I ever expect to be as advertised is "Off", and I lose fewer IQ points watching it.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
And I want a cut of the money you collect as well.
I'd be just fine with taxing like other entertainment businesses. There's no reason that a company that promotes sing-along concerts about Jewish fairy tales should avoid the IRS, while "poor" Disney has to pay taxes on screening its Star Wars flicks. Both are just peddling the same merchandise.
I'm fine with anyone choosing to practice whatever gobble-gook religion that they think they believe . . . as long as they try to force it on others. I am not fine with them making a business out of their religion, while using tax-free revenue to force their own views on others.
The Catholic Church is a real estate and financial empire, with a well-documented history of impeding justice while promoting child abuse. They should be whacked with a RICO case.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I agree; we have to avoid this deep indoctrination of children without choice; every christian church gathering as should share time equally between their own brand of Christianity, Kibology, Eventualism and the Pastafarians. Other religions such as Hinduism, Islam and The Cult of the Earth Godess should be added as and when representatives are available.
I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.
John
You know, from an economic policy and growth perspective, that might not actually be such a bad idea..... research organizations that are non-profit can already claim tax exempt status, but giving them the same range as religious organizations could really encourage some movement forward.
Sadly Christianity in the US has sects that might as well be in a Looney Tunes cartoon. It starts with rabid, primitive ministers who preach absurd sermons. They take one word, not understanding the meaning, and form cults from the linguistic confusion. LeBron James played an inspired basketball game the other night. It was wonderful to watch. He may have been inspired by god, Himself. That does not imply that Lebron played a perfect basketball game. there is a huge difference between inspired and perfect. The men who wrote the Bible were inspired. The King James version in particular is a work of the highest art. That does not imply that the bible is perfect. After all, it was written by men who were just like LeBron james inspired but not perfect. Further the message of the Bible had to be delivered in a way that people could understand it. Terms that are understood to men in the 21st. century would have meant nothing at all to men 2,000 years ago. But take a backwoods Baptist minister wound up in full religious fervor and he can take a Bible and twist it into nonsense beyond all reason. As America has declined we have more and more wrectched people who simply latch on to straws trying to survive. The doctrines that they latch onto would be an abomination to Christ and are not part of the Christian faith. But we all understand that no matter how much proof of evolution emerges that backwoods nut of a minister can simply claim the proofs were created by the devil and are all false proofs. If anything it was that minister who was created by the devil to deceive the followers.
It's how you spell and pronounce Plato in the majority of languages across the world.
The problem we have is that "political correctness" is too entrenched in the Creationism vs Evolution battle, and that PC-ness dictates "everything/everyone should be treated equally and fairly". All fine for "fairness" (how to define it is another matter), but ideas/opinions are NOT people, and thus do not have some sort of right... .... crazy?
Let me give an example which exagerates the point:
Lets say that I have this belief that 2+2 = 5, and this differs from mainstream thought that 2+2=4 (except where pentium processors are involved where it is 3.9997, but that's a different matter).
I start complaining that my opinion/theory/belief/religion (how you want to define the credence of 2+2=5 is perhaps the crux) is NOT being given equal time in maths classes across the country.
Am I justified in demanding equal time?
Perhaps it is justified to teach it as an alternative school of philosophy (supposing that philosophy classes typically talk about different schools of thought, and they will present those most widely seen -if of course my 2+2=5 gains traction), however, to teach it in a MATHS class where we are talking about mathematical proofs, or at most teaching theories that have not been MATHEMATICALLY deemed unlikely, would probably be
In the same way, evolution is science. creationism is religion. Trying to push creationism into the realm of science, would demand applying the scientific method to it, the same as trying to push 2+2=5ism into maths would demand applying mathematical principals into it.
We're talking about science. You may not like it, but the world works on science (as opposed to praying on religion).
Equal time for kooky opinions vs science fact is not fair. Just in the same way that flat-earth believers should not be given same time as round-world (or irregular sphericalists if you prefer).
Creationism is far-fetched and sustained by belief, which is very close to being the definition of religion. If you want to bring it into the realm of science, then we get to the point of extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof... Once we get that, then we can start talking about shifting mainstream. Meanwhile, keep it in literal-reading bible schools of thought, which is where it belongs.
All the above is very opinionated. My opinion.
But a least it gives some arguments for a compationate God, since s/he does not smite them in anger for keeping on telling him, her, it how to do its job...
That sentence blew the personal pronoun component of my cognitive language corpus straight out the side of my head. Two hose clamps and some duct tape later, I think it's still leaking.
You might want to bone up on the Wiki entries for Personal Pronoun, the Gender Specific Pronoun, Gender Neutral and Cult of Androgyny. Once you make your way through all that you'll know why gentlemen of refined wit and impeccable manners refrain from making remarks to anyone. About anything. We just stare and drool.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
To quote a Jain scholar on the absurdity of creationist belief,
"Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?
How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.
If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.
If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?
If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.
If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else
If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,
And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
My favorite is the critique section in the wiki of this notion.
I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.
Yes yes yes this this THIS times a million!
We need to start taxing 'religious' organizations the same way we tax every other business -- because that's what they are: businesses. Have been for a long, long time now, and it's time everyone stopped sticking their heads in the sand and admitted that. "Oh but that money is to do charitable work!" some are going to say, but I call bullshit on that. Know what they do with that money? They spend it on politics, and on building extravagant churches! Enough's enough, time for them to pay up like everyone else, and time for them to get their religious noses out of politics.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
offering weekly moral instruction to children
Particularly laughable. In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine. Not appropriate 'moral instruction' for a modern era. Keep the fairy tales out of science programming, end of story.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
personally I want to see taxes get slashed accross the board and spending at a federal level cut by a drastic number as well. Let the people and states keep their money
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Particularly laughable. In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
Ask True Believers about this, and they reply with variations on "Oh, that part of the bible does not count." Really.
And for each viewpoint...
So we got Christians, Atheists, FSM, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Scientologists, etc... Keep things going and it'll only be like one second for each every service day.
From the Cosmos show, the key ingredient of all life is the DNA factory in the cell. Where the DNA is stripped and duplicated and new cells are created. This is true for all life...
Except some viruses, which have no DNA at all. Some have DNA. Some have only single-helix RNA. Some have double-helix RNA. They're the last surviving remnant of the simpler system from which DNA life evolved. DNA life was so successful in its expansion across the planet it obliterated its precursor (essentially by eating it).
The unanswered question, is how does this DNA duplication factory happen by accident? Not to mention the accidental creation of DNA in the first place.
The only way we will ever see that in action "in the wild" is by exploring other worlds. Unless and until we find DNA precursor life on another world, we will only have laboratory experiments to show us how we got here. Eventually those laboratory experiments will be as reliable as the experiments that prove how your microwave works, but they will always be artificial. If you want to see it happening live, get out and explore the galaxy.
I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.
@plover...
In the Bible, Christ preaches that his followers should pay their taxes. You know 'Render unto Rome what is Rome's...". I believe that fundamentalist christian churches should volutarily be paying taxes, even if the law does not require it.
After all the bible tells them to do it!
... once all of the science organizations start running various charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages, offering weekly moral instruction to children ...
You mean like finding answers to health, nutrition, construction problems the way scientists, physicians and engineers do? Or like passing on modern ideas on philosophy and morality in stead of ancient and outdated scripture, the way academia does?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Being a scientific organization is one of the major listed justifications for tax exempt status - assuming the other criteria are met.
The part in bold there is kind of the point. Scientific organizations--actually educational organizations of all kinds--can indeed apply for non-profit status, but they have to prove they meet the standards. Churches are assumed to qualify a priori.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Funny that they have a fit if you dare even suggest taxing churches but didn't their own book say "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
No, what I mean is what I wrote: running charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages, and so on. Developing academic knowledge of the variance in protein content of a particular wheat variety doesn't actually feed people. You have to give them food for them to be fed. Developing a better bonding process for shingles so that they last 30 years instead of 25 years doesn't actually house people. You have to give them a place to sleep in a building for them to be housed. Scientific work is both useful and important, but it is not the only important work.
Many of the so called "modern ideas" are simply restatements of bad old ideas. But perhaps you can tell me, when the principle of treat people as you wish to be treated, or love your neighbor, become obsolete?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Last time that happened in the USA, it was called the Great Depression, you want version 2.0, so the rich can start jumping out of windows again?
To qualify for tax exempt status churches also have to meet various criteria. (.pdf)
I will also note that everyone on Slashdot loves to quote the Constitution, but tend to be forgetful about some clauses.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
There seems to be historical and documentary evidence that freedom of religion was important in the founding of the US.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"Yes yes yes this this THIS times a million! "
No, no, no... billions and billions of times. (Yes, I know: Sagan never actually said that.)
Here's the problem with that, and it's such a HUGE amount of history that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. But it seems that it does, so here goes:
History says very clearly that once you allow government to get involved with religion, or religion with government, pretty soon you have government-mandated religion, or religion-run government. And both of those are Very Bad. Religions have never -- ever, ever -- been good heads of government. And it's pretty obvious why government-mandated religion is just as bad.
That is why we have effective separation of Church and State in the US. But many people misunderstand it.
Contrary to what many people seem to think, the reason for that separation is not to "keep religion out" of everything. At all. It is intended to prevent any kind of official government sponsorhip of a particular religion. Our Founders were intimately familiar with religious persecution, and it was their intent to prevent it. But it was not their intent to suppress religion.
Example: a nearby city government had prayer before every meeting. The prayers were generally given by a Catholic priest, probably just because there was a big Catholic church just down the street. Some people objected, and it went all the way up to the State Supreme Court. This is what the court said (paraphrase):
"There is no law or clause in the Constitution preventing you from having prayer. However, you ARE prohibited from supporting any PARTICULAR religion. Offering Catholic prayer before every meeting is de facto government sponsorship of a particular religion."
The city's answer: now, any religion that wants to participate can get put on their list. They either rotate through the list or draw them at random... I'm not sure which. But the upshot is that they still have prayer before every meeting, but it isn't necessarily Catholic or even Christian. I remember once they had prayers from the local Baha'i faith.
Now, nobody has any reason to object and there are no problems. Even the atheists don't seem to have a problem with it.
The difference is that churches are allowed to actively lobby for a cause while maintaining their tax exempt status. While a church is not allowed to, for instance, lobby for a particular candidate, they can lobby for a particular cause that is relevant to their faith (such as same sex marriage).
By contrast, if a scientific group lobbies for something such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear and renewables, or more stringent oversight by the USDA on GMO's ecological impact, they would usually lose their charitable organization status.
So sure, scientific organizations are tax exempt, but as soon as they step out of the scientific arena by issuing weak "statements" into the political arena to spend money trying to effect change, at the very least, they have their charitable status revoked so you cannot claim donations as deductions. On the other hand, many churches were able to maintain their charitable organization status even as they poured millions of dollars into fighting for clearly partisan causes, such as opposing same-sex marriage.
You appeared to be arguing that the differences in tax status of religious vs scientific institutions, such as they are, are justified because some of the former act charitably some times. I don't mean to diminish that at all, by pointing out that efforts of modern scientists also contribute a great deal of practical and immediate value. And, by that measure, the tax status difference can not reasonably be justified, imho.
Values such as you mention have not become obsolete, but following them blindly because some old book says so has. The reason I live by "do unto others..." despite being an atheist is it makes basic sense to me. I find I keep having to point out the obvious, not being a christian (or whatever) doesn't mean I oppose all of its ideals as a matter of principle or something.
I find valuable lessons, alongside unbearable smallmindedness, in the various holy scriptures, in the same way as I might find them in (other) fairytales, aphorisms, plays, poems, etc.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
The reality is creationism shouldn't get any time because this debate has been done and it got no traction.
What matters is the mainstream scientific community, peer reviewed publications, scrutinized by the worldwide biology / genetic PhDs of the world. In that arena creationism has been thoroughly debunked.
Cosmos isn't a scientific discussion program, it's a scientific education program. So unproven theories should not be given any credit in such a medium.
Of course, Cosmos is a TV show, the National Geographic could choose to show it. But I doubt the current producers would accept to show credible scientific theories side by side with creationism.
People that believe in creationism as hard scientific data usually don't have much of a measurable IQ, BTW.
Teaching creationism at church sunday school is one thing, but in high school, nonononono !
Hey now! Let's not forget incest, screwing your wife's servants, murdering people for various evils such as being gay, and (let's not forget the New Testament) wives being subservient to their husbands, literally "as the Church serves Christ our Lord". I think if I ever even hinted I should have the equivalent of divine authority over my household, my girlfriend might stab me. Can't say she'd be wrong to, either.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
No, I can confirm I've heard similar rationalising.
Everything from getting embarrassed and changing the subject to "That part doesn't apply in today's modern age"
How do you rationalise it to yourself if it isn't the bury your head in the sand technique?
Of course no one but a church could possibly hope to run charities, food shelves, hospitals and orphanages.
"Tell me, Mr. Darwin, which of your ancestors do you believe was an ape?"
Old example, but a classic and the same kind of "thinking" that fundamentalists still use today. It's not a strawman.
In fairness, macroevolution is an interesting field of study, for all that it's driven by the same process (just on a greater level) as microevolution. The line is often drawn at speciation - that is, when genetic communities of common ancestry can no longer produce viable offspring with members of the other community but can do so within their own community - except that we've actually observed speciation in the lab. At that point the goalposts get moved, to require such significant and obvious changes (such as sea-dwellers becoming land-dwellers, as if this happened over the course of a few generations instead of millions of years) that "a dog giving birth to a pig" is actually relatively generous of of the GP.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You misunderstand me: I don't want the Separation of Church and State to be erased. I sure as hell don't want "state mandated religion" or "state endorsed religion" or any such thing. For the record, in my opinion, organized religions are the ones who are trying to erase that Separation, and they're doing it by intentionally getting their sheeplike congregations to vote the way the churches want them to vote, and they're collecting monies from the same people to give to political candidates and to support ballot initiatives that further their political agendas. Meanwhile they're building extravagant churches and spending money on extravagant things and paying some of their leaders extravagant salaries, and there aren't any taxes being paid. How is this fair? If they would stay out of politics and government themselves then maybe I wouldn't care as much, or if they actually spent all that money they apparently have (based on what they're spending it on) on things like the homeless problem or feeding the poor instead of flashy church buildings etc then again I wouldn't have much to complain about. But instead of making their primary concern the health and well-being of people's "spiritual lives" (whatever that means) and actual charitable causes, they meddle in politics and government with obvious intent to try to become the ruling faction in this country. Where is your Separation of Church and State now? It's blindingly obvious that if they had their way, they'd see candidates elected to office who would begin to erase that Separation and turn the U.S. into a religion-run country.
People can have their religion and spiritual beliefs all they want, and good for them if it somehow improves the quality of their lives. But that's where the line needs to be drawn: It needs to be about the individual, and it needs to not be about Power Seeking More Power, which is the direction it's been going for a long, long time now. It has to stop.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I think you may have misunderstood the comment. What we have now is lack of separation - the state, usually the courts, decides what is and is not a religion or a religious establishment and consequently how it will be taxed.
What people are pushing for is an end to this practice - treat all non-profits the same way, including religions. This means that your weird cult will have to fill out a little more paperwork to get its tax exempt status, but you don't run the risk of some orthodox judge denouncing you as heretics. The catch is, and this is why people lobby against this, you would actually have to be a non-profit. There are criteria to be met, audits to pass. Some "churches," which are really just operating as scams, wouldn't qualify. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, operates out of the family home (tax free) and claims the swimming pool as a baptismal font (tax free).
History says very clearly that once you allow government to get involved with religion, or religion with government, pretty soon you have government-mandated religion, or religion-run government. And both of those are Very Bad. Religions have never -- ever, ever -- been good heads of government. And it's pretty obvious why government-mandated religion is just as bad.
Yes, but you missed the point by exactly 180 degrees there.
Government giving special status to religions (by tax excemption) is the opposite of government staying out of religion. What the GP wants is that religion has no special status and is treated just like everyone else, and that would be less government involvement with religion, because it does away with the special treatment and registration, and reduces the interface between them. Now they aren't special little kids anymore, they're just taxpayers just like everyone else.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?
Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.
Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.
This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:
All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.
See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.
Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:
For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.
Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?
The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.
*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
and not one piece of what you said has anything to do with what I said.
Im not arguing for no taxes, im not some anarchist. I simply want the states to handle the brunt of governmental duties and the federal government to stick to its constitutional duties.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It certainly was and is. But that in now way gives one religion more sway then any others, or even those who choose not to believe.
Please stop repeating that crap. Nobody choses to believe or not to believe anything. Did you "chose" to believe in gravity, rain, oxygen or electricity? Or did you simply encounter enough evidence that you were convinced through no intentional decision? Did you sit down one day and dicide not to believe in unicorns, pixie dust or wood nimphs? Or did you never find enough evidence to convince you that they exist.
Nobody choses to believe or not believe something. They can chose to ignore or fabricate evidence (though at some point even this is impossible for most people) or surround themselves with people (maybe once a week) that reinforce their beliefs. If someone does not believe in something, it is not because they chose not to, but because they do not have enough evidence to convince them it exists.
Tell you what, next time I fall off a cliff while hiking I will simply chose not be believe in gravity or sharp rocks.
But there is a duck billed platypus. Can you explain that?
1/3 of American Christians do think the bible should be taken literally, according to various polls. 56% think the bible should "have a greater role in society", yet - 57% didn't read the bible at all the year the poll was taken. 75% of people in the USA think the bible is the word of god, or inspired by god.
If you accept the Bible to be the "word of god", and most Americans do, then you are NOT taking it metaphorically. But, on the other hand most Americans haven't actually read the whole bible and only hear the "good" parts in church, as selected by their pastor. The evidence is overwhelming that most USA christians have a simple, literal, or almost literal, belief in the bible. They are not taking it metaphorically.
Once you decide that the bible should be taken "metaphorically" how does one decide what it really means? How does one decide which parts should be ignored? How does one decide which parts are good? It appears that most theologians are using rational, post enlightenment ideals, to cherry pick the good parts from the bible, and explaining away the parts that are evil, or contradicted by science as metaphor. Once you start down this path you are pretty close not needing the bible at all for your moral outlook, and discarding the iron age myths in favour of modern secular morals will seem a sensible step.
Anarchists never rule
"In the Bible, Christ preaches that his followers should pay their taxes. You know 'Render unto Rome what is Rome's...". I believe that fundamentalist christian churches should volutarily be paying taxes, even if the law does not require it. "
First, churches are not their followers... the followers do pay taxes.
Not on money they give to their church. So it's really 2 tax exemptions, the one for the individual deducting money given to the church and one for income to the church not being taxed. If the church were a business (it's not, it's a virus - the only goal of a church is to grow) it would have had to pay taxes on the income and the individual would have to pay taxes as well, Meanwhile, the rest of us pick up that tax shortfall (and pay for the "quiverfull" families).
Enigma
Rationalize what? I mean the stories are little more than history and they are delivered in yhe context of covenants- each chonollogically new covenant replacing the older ones.
What you likely are experiencing is people who have no idea how to deal with someone too ignorant about the subject to comprehend the meaning of including the old testament with the new testament.
By the way, it doesn't apply now is the correct answer. Its because of the covenants if you missed it. You really should take a bit of time and try to understand the concepts you are criticizing before spouting of about it.
I say let them have their own show. It can be on the Comedy Central.
Why? There's a lot of things I can't avoid and others I can. I do have a good and relatively clean genetic background. I eat as healthy as I know how with my wife cooking most meals at home -- she even makes our bread for us. I have fresh vegetables and lots more homemade stuff than most people get these days. And I certainly pay through the nose to get it -- my wife stays at home and I am a single income earner. That's an extreme compromise I admit, but the benefits are also pretty obvious.
I stay as far away from HFCS and other poisons as I possibly can. I have pretty much given up on excessively sweet things and have actually lost the taste and cravings for it over a decade ago. None of the things I do warrant writing a book. Just read articles on healthy living and ACTUALLY DO IT. That's where people fail the most. They just don't do it.
Would you believe that I have a fairly large salad EVERY DAY and on weekdays, TWICE a day. My wife makes my lunch, and that's what I get : salad and some kind of meat. That's fives days a week. Breakfast is also not terribly creative and defies what most people call healthy. Whole fried egg and large sausage patty on flat bread with cheese? A bit better than McDonald's. Again, nothing worth writing a book about.
And I drink water!! I have given up on soda almost completely. I drink unsweetened tea and V8 drinks too, but iced water with maybe a twist of lime or lemon is just great for me. Those changes from today's norm were not easy to make. And falling off of that wagon would probably be too easy except that I am just not "that guy." A personal sense of integrity isn't luck. You just have to do the things you know you should. And once again, THAT is where the majority fail.
Most health problems are COMPLETELY preventable. Jackasses out there just won't address the problems. Those jackasses are mostly food producers and government regulators, but also include people who make lots of life choices which compromise health for other things. The life choices I make are not easy ones and they aren't cheap ones. But I believe they are good ones.
Is there room for improvement? Oh yeah. I wish my wife would make better pizza. She's Japanese and doesn't vary her recipes or processes too much. Anyone who understands Japanese personalities understands what I'm talking about. But over all? The best improvements would come from the supply and regulatory side of things. One of my wife's friends moved from the US to Japan with her American husband. He was chubby here. A year in Japan and the weight just disappeared. Yes, he walks more, takes public transit and all that, but they eat mostly American style food there. What gives? Well, I'll tell you, after reading ingredients lists and the differences in food regulation in Japan, it's not hard to figure out what's different. I can't live in Japan though -- NO SAUSAGE and BACON... not as I know and love them anyway.
This is a long post. Enjoy the book I just wrote for you.
Or is there a channel for make believe and fairy tales?
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.