Yeah, but I forgive you for making an ass of yourself.
I wasn't the one who made an ass of myself by assuming those opposed to forced religion are from the left. I believe that was you who did that. Yeap, here's your quote: "Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard e.g. lawsuits against ID"
Put aside your petty biases and you'll see that the reason that you don't want forced religion
I don't want forced religion because I don't want people persecuted for their beliefs. I find it ironic the pilgrims who settled the New World were escaping persecution themselves but it's still alive today.
mitigate the forces that institute their own anti-God religion
Not only am I not from the left, as used in the US, but I am not anti-religious either. As a matter of fact I'm agnostic: a - without, and gnosys - knowledge. I am without knowledge as pertains religion and spirituality. I wish I did believe in some sort of religion or spirituality, it would make my life so much easier, "I'm suffering because it's 'God's' plan and I can accept his plan." As it is now if there is a supreme deity I can't help but think it must be sadistic.
Yea she was wrong but many others like Dominionists and Reconstructionists would do a lot more, such as stoning. There are plenty of Christian Talibans who would do the same right here in the US. These are the same people who want ID taught in schools as a science.
Wait, how can someone who is supposedly a libertarian believe in the banning of abortion, unless they aren't actually a libertarian at all?
Unfortunately, and though I wish it weren't true, though the party platform is such that government should stay out of abortion there are some Libertarians who are pro-life.. Libertarians for Life for instance oppose abortions. Like they, whoever they is, used to say about the Republican Party the Libertarian Party is a big tent.
And non-believers want to force their beliefs down the believers throats.
It really does go both ways, whether you like, or agree, with their side or not, BOTH should be presented and discussed.
I don't recall ever seeing a ruler being forcibly applied to children for not says the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school with "under God" but I had that happen happen to me because I did not say the "under god" part. It was against my religious beliefs to say it so I didn't. The teacher then grabbed a ruler off her desk and hit my hand, or arm I don't recall which, several tymes. She then demanded I say "under god". And that happened in a public school.
If focused only on property taxes only the property owners and not renters are paying directly
The property owner charges enough for the lease to make a profit, that include being able to pay property taxes and still have money left over.
Personally I'm of the view that a system where there is one huge tax (sales or property) and the other is non-existent is a broken system. A properly balanced tax system with sales and property taxes is more ideal.
I have no problem with there being both property and sales taxes. Well maybe I do, I question why government needs both taxes. On the other hand a pollution tax is easier to justifiable, only those who create or cause to be created, by demand, pollution then pays. Even there though I still think it should be the polluter who pays.
Finally, if you want your ambulance paid out of your tax dollars you should petition your local politicians to raise taxes and support ambulance services with those tax revenues
I don't want my tax dollars to pay for ambulance service. My health insurance should have paid it. That's why I had, I no longer have, health insurance. As it was an emergency insurance should have covered it.
Personally I prefer my local system where much like your own the users of the services are on the hook for the expense.
I'd add, as I said above, or their insurance. That's what boths me about it, my insurance should have paid for the ambulance, that and that the bill was so high. No expensive equipment or drugs were needed nor was the drive to the hospital a long one.
An ambulance should never be necessary except in the most immediate need circumstances (such as imminent death) as someone can always drive you the short distance to the emergency room.
I had an excruciating pain in my abdomen and for all I knew I was dying. My sister asked me if I wanted an ambulance and I indicated yes. I realized later it didn't help, she could have driven me to the hospital and saved the cost of the ambulance.
And since there is no such K-12 course as "history of science", "Creationism" belongs side by side with "Evolutionaryism" as long as the modest theory of evolution has been co-opted by those with an anti- religious agenda.
And where is creationism to be taught? It better not be taught in science, it is not science. Anti-religious? I'm only anti-religious if by that you mean stopping religion from being shoved down people's throats. I still recall having a ruler forcibly applied to children's hands or arms, including my own, in a public school for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under 'God"" in a public school. So yea, when it comes to forcing one religion down other people's throat I am anti-religious.
Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard e.g. lawsuits against ID
I find even more funny, tragic really, when people make an ass of themselves by assuming those opposed to forced religion are from the left.
if they're "pro choice" they're for legalizing drugs. Why is it a woman's right to remove a fetus, but not to add a drug?
I doubt many pro-choice people are pro legalized drugs as well, then again that maybe your point, they are pro-choice one place but aren't somewhere else. Personally I am pro-choice everywhere, so long as somebody does not harm another they should be able to whatever they want.
all most people believing in creation wish to do is put both beliefs out there. But the evolutionists want the other side silenced and marginalized.
Creationism is not science, and the only way it belongs in a science class is as part of the history of science, such as Creationists tried to outlaw evolution.
I don't see anything wrong with teaching the history of humanity's understanding of the planet's origins.
Teach it in a history, philosophy, mythology, or another class then. But not in science, it is not science. And if you're going to teach it in these other classes then you'd better teach the Apache Creation Story, the Zuni Creation Cycle, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as others.
Religion belongs in history class, not science class. I'd have no problem with teaching more about all the wonderful things religion has brought to the world, but the bible thumpers don't want education, they want converts.
Bible thumpers, as well as other fundamentalists, don't want converts either. They want to dictate how others will live. If any of them really wanted converts they wouldn't try to force their beliefs down others' throat, instead they'd try to use the power of the message. That they instead try to use the power of government shows they don't have faith in the power of the message. (That comes from another/.er's sig)
He was originally disagreeing with the person who said that Palin wanting creationism taught in schools -- in the context of science class as an alternative to evolution -- was a bad thing, and unconstitutional.
I didn't get that point, that he thought Palin wanting to teach creationism was good. In that case, I apologize for saying you were wrong.
Creationism is not science that's what's wrong with teaching creationism in science. And ID, Intelligent Design, is just an attempt to dress up creationism in scientific clothes.
I don't want creationism taught in a science class
Then you're talking about something different than what other people are talking about. There are people out there, people in power, who want to teach creationism as science -- some using the paper-thin disguise of Intelligent Design, some not even bothering with that -- and that's who most of us are trying to keep at arms length.
No he's not. Actually you are backing he up, but you start by saying he's wrong. He says he doesn't want creationism taught in science then you say they are trying to use ID to teach creationism in science.
And sure, she is hot [vpilf.com] (safe for work) but it would appear she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools [wired.com].
What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there?
What's wrong with teaching creationism in science? It is not science, teach science not mythology in science.
The majority of pro-evolution zealots on slashdot don't have enough science background to disprove a good creationist.
You don't need to know much science, all you have to do is ask if a person can reproduce it in a science lab. If it's not reproducible it's not science.
"Senator Obama, what do you wear: boxers or briefs?"
Neither, bikinis.
And strangely enough, Palin's record is eerily like Quayle's. Looks great on paper, but rather innocuous. Nothing jumps out. And alas, that's what's needed in a VP. She votes firmly with the party line. Nary a rebellious thought in her head. Just like Quayle.
Actually I'll say, as a compliment, Palin is rebellious. She took on a Republican governor when she ran for governor. She also took on Republican Senator Ted Stevens over the Bridge to Nowhere. However as she's anti-choice and pro drilling I couldn't support her, even if I was Republican.
Oh, you should get it. I did a PADI class; it was really easy, and it's a no-brainer to walk onto a random diveboat with the card.
I want to get my cert, actually I'd like to get my master diver cert which requires two more certifications after the basic open water cert. One of the certs I would like to get is underwater photography. I'm not sure what other cert to get though. I'm not sure what organization, NAUI, PADI, or YMCA, to get my cert from though. I took class for YMCA cert but if I do get it I might go with NAUI.
Unless it's a keyword for "ineffectual", which was the only connection I could make from it.
Seeing as James Madison pretty much wrote the Constitution of the USA, which btw was based on the Iroquois Confederacy, I'd say he was pretty effectual.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but I forgive you for making an ass of yourself.
I wasn't the one who made an ass of myself by assuming those opposed to forced religion are from the left. I believe that was you who did that. Yeap, here's your quote: "Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard e.g. lawsuits against ID"
Put aside your petty biases and you'll see that the reason that you don't want forced religion
I don't want forced religion because I don't want people persecuted for their beliefs. I find it ironic the pilgrims who settled the New World were escaping persecution themselves but it's still alive today.
mitigate the forces that institute their own anti-God religion
Not only am I not from the left, as used in the US, but I am not anti-religious either. As a matter of fact I'm agnostic: a - without, and gnosys - knowledge. I am without knowledge as pertains religion and spirituality. I wish I did believe in some sort of religion or spirituality, it would make my life so much easier, "I'm suffering because it's 'God's' plan and I can accept his plan." As it is now if there is a supreme deity I can't help but think it must be sadistic.
Falcon
Then your teacher was a douche and in the wrong.
Yea she was wrong but many others like Dominionists and Reconstructionists would do a lot more, such as stoning. There are plenty of Christian Talibans who would do the same right here in the US. These are the same people who want ID taught in schools as a science.
Falcon
And yet, she specifically targeted the Bridge to Nowhere and had it killed.
Despite what people continue to say Palin didn't oppose the bridge to nowhere. There are more links on it.
Falcon
Wait, how can someone who is supposedly a libertarian believe in the banning of abortion, unless they aren't actually a libertarian at all?
Unfortunately, and though I wish it weren't true, though the party platform is such that government should stay out of abortion there are some Libertarians who are pro-life.. Libertarians for Life for instance oppose abortions. Like they, whoever they is, used to say about the Republican Party the Libertarian Party is a big tent.
Falcon
And non-believers want to force their beliefs down the believers throats.
It really does go both ways, whether you like, or agree, with their side or not, BOTH should be presented and discussed.
I don't recall ever seeing a ruler being forcibly applied to children for not says the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school with "under God" but I had that happen happen to me because I did not say the "under god" part. It was against my religious beliefs to say it so I didn't. The teacher then grabbed a ruler off her desk and hit my hand, or arm I don't recall which, several tymes. She then demanded I say "under god". And that happened in a public school.
Falcon
If focused only on property taxes only the property owners and not renters are paying directly
The property owner charges enough for the lease to make a profit, that include being able to pay property taxes and still have money left over.
Personally I'm of the view that a system where there is one huge tax (sales or property) and the other is non-existent is a broken system. A properly balanced tax system with sales and property taxes is more ideal.
I have no problem with there being both property and sales taxes. Well maybe I do, I question why government needs both taxes. On the other hand a pollution tax is easier to justifiable, only those who create or cause to be created, by demand, pollution then pays. Even there though I still think it should be the polluter who pays.
Finally, if you want your ambulance paid out of your tax dollars you should petition your local politicians to raise taxes and support ambulance services with those tax revenues
I don't want my tax dollars to pay for ambulance service. My health insurance should have paid it. That's why I had, I no longer have, health insurance. As it was an emergency insurance should have covered it.
Personally I prefer my local system where much like your own the users of the services are on the hook for the expense.
I'd add, as I said above, or their insurance. That's what boths me about it, my insurance should have paid for the ambulance, that and that the bill was so high. No expensive equipment or drugs were needed nor was the drive to the hospital a long one.
An ambulance should never be necessary except in the most immediate need circumstances (such as imminent death) as someone can always drive you the short distance to the emergency room.
I had an excruciating pain in my abdomen and for all I knew I was dying. My sister asked me if I wanted an ambulance and I indicated yes. I realized later it didn't help, she could have driven me to the hospital and saved the cost of the ambulance.
I never did find out what it was.
Falcon
And since there is no such K-12 course as "history of science", "Creationism" belongs side by side with "Evolutionaryism" as long as the modest theory of evolution has been co-opted by those with an anti- religious agenda.
And where is creationism to be taught? It better not be taught in science, it is not science. Anti-religious? I'm only anti-religious if by that you mean stopping religion from being shoved down people's throats. I still recall having a ruler forcibly applied to children's hands or arms, including my own, in a public school for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under 'God"" in a public school. So yea, when it comes to forcing one religion down other people's throat I am anti-religious.
Funny how it's the left who is so against having the other side heard e.g. lawsuits against ID
I find even more funny, tragic really, when people make an ass of themselves by assuming those opposed to forced religion are from the left.
Falcon
if they're "pro choice" they're for legalizing drugs. Why is it a woman's right to remove a fetus, but not to add a drug?
I doubt many pro-choice people are pro legalized drugs as well, then again that maybe your point, they are pro-choice one place but aren't somewhere else. Personally I am pro-choice everywhere, so long as somebody does not harm another they should be able to whatever they want.
Falcon
The purpose of the discussion on these topics is to promote bigotry against religious people -- especially Christians.
No, you miss the point, the point being that fundies, especially Christians, want to force their beliefs down nonbelievers throats.
Falcon
all most people believing in creation wish to do is put both beliefs out there. But the evolutionists want the other side silenced and marginalized.
Creationism is not science, and the only way it belongs in a science class is as part of the history of science, such as Creationists tried to outlaw evolution.
Falcon
Science belongs in a science class, creationism is not a science and does not belong in a science class.
Falcon
I don't see anything wrong with teaching the history of humanity's understanding of the planet's origins.
Teach it in a history, philosophy, mythology, or another class then. But not in science, it is not science. And if you're going to teach it in these other classes then you'd better teach the Apache Creation Story, the Zuni Creation Cycle, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as others.
Falcon
Religion belongs in history class, not science class. I'd have no problem with teaching more about all the wonderful things religion has brought to the world, but the bible thumpers don't want education, they want converts.
Bible thumpers, as well as other fundamentalists, don't want converts either. They want to dictate how others will live. If any of them really wanted converts they wouldn't try to force their beliefs down others' throat, instead they'd try to use the power of the message. That they instead try to use the power of government shows they don't have faith in the power of the message. (That comes from another /.er's sig)
Falcon
I actually am a Christian who believes the Bible and knows God created the universe
You mean you believe your God created the universe don't you? Or do you have some empirical evidence your God did create our universe?
Myself, I used to believe in not in an all-powerful supreme being that loves man but in the spirit or soul. However now I don't even believe in those.
Falcon
He was originally disagreeing with the person who said that Palin wanting creationism taught in schools -- in the context of science class as an alternative to evolution -- was a bad thing, and unconstitutional.
I didn't get that point, that he thought Palin wanting to teach creationism was good. In that case, I apologize for saying you were wrong.
Falcon
What is wrong from a scientific standpoint?
Creationism is not science that's what's wrong with teaching creationism in science. And ID, Intelligent Design, is just an attempt to dress up creationism in scientific clothes.
Falcon
I don't want creationism taught in a science class
Then you're talking about something different than what other people are talking about. There are people out there, people in power, who want to teach creationism as science -- some using the paper-thin disguise of Intelligent Design, some not even bothering with that -- and that's who most of us are trying to keep at arms length.
No he's not. Actually you are backing he up, but you start by saying he's wrong. He says he doesn't want creationism taught in science then you say they are trying to use ID to teach creationism in science.
Falcon
And sure, she is hot [vpilf.com] (safe for work) but it would appear she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools [wired.com].
What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there?
What's wrong with teaching creationism in science? It is not science, teach science not mythology in science.
Falcon
what *is* wrong with creationism?
Nothing, so long as it's not taught in science. It is not science. Now if you want to teach it in a philosophy class then go ahead, however if you do be sure to also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apache Creation Story, and The Zuni Creation Cycle among others.
Falcon
A lot of people will fall in to the trap of believing in "science" when a their "priesthood" endorses. A great example is the anti-nuclear group.
Another group is the pro nuclear power group.
Falcon
The majority of pro-evolution zealots on slashdot don't have enough science background to disprove a good creationist.
You don't need to know much science, all you have to do is ask if a person can reproduce it in a science lab. If it's not reproducible it's not science.
Falcon
"Senator Obama, what do you wear: boxers or briefs?"
Neither, bikinis.
And strangely enough, Palin's record is eerily like Quayle's. Looks great on paper, but rather innocuous. Nothing jumps out. And alas, that's what's needed in a VP. She votes firmly with the party line. Nary a rebellious thought in her head. Just like Quayle.
Actually I'll say, as a compliment, Palin is rebellious. She took on a Republican governor when she ran for governor. She also took on Republican Senator Ted Stevens over the Bridge to Nowhere. However as she's anti-choice and pro drilling I couldn't support her, even if I was Republican.
Falcon
although I've scuba dived I don't have mine.
Oh, you should get it. I did a PADI class; it was really easy, and it's a no-brainer to walk onto a random diveboat with the card.
I want to get my cert, actually I'd like to get my master diver cert which requires two more certifications after the basic open water cert. One of the certs I would like to get is underwater photography. I'm not sure what other cert to get though. I'm not sure what organization, NAUI, PADI, or YMCA, to get my cert from though. I took class for YMCA cert but if I do get it I might go with NAUI.
Falcon
Unless it's a keyword for "ineffectual", which was the only connection I could make from it.
Seeing as James Madison pretty much wrote the Constitution of the USA, which btw was based on the Iroquois Confederacy, I'd say he was pretty effectual.
Falcon
I'm completely croggled that Carter is considered Madisonian!!
Same here. I'm wondering who put that in wiki.
Falcon