Said Freeman Hunt, in that thread yesterday that went awry.
Thanks to Palladian for the LOLdino.
Now, did Sarah Palin say that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time"? I don't know, but it's such a charming, distracting controversy, compared to the -- what is it? -- impending depression.
ADDED: A little theme music [removed, years later, because it became unavailable].
Posts
223 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 223 of 223bagoh20 said..."If Palin was so bad the left wouldn't be pulling all the stops to attack her."
What attacks?
"If she took the very same position but demonstrated she formed that view out of careful study of the issue, I'd at least be able to respectfully disagree."
I think that this is a "politician skill" that is usually essentially a lie. Obama can sound thoughtful about absolutely anything. It's a talent.
Last I checked, the idea of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. So why do you think you "win" the argument by saying a majority of the people are okay with arguably unconstitutional endorsements of religion in public schools? Anyone who cites opinion polls to "prove" a government action is not a violation of the Bill of Rights is a joke.
There are any number of reasons why public schools are unconstitutional. Because if they are unconstitutional for "pushing religion down the throats of kids" they are doubly unconstitutional for enforcing a non-religious view point!
Public schools are a *problem*.
But you don't get to ban religion, period. Most certainly not because you've decided to force compulsory education on children.
Viewing a sanitized public sphere as neutral is a self-serving choice and it wouldn't make it five seconds if someone was trying to argue that, oh, racial minorities are not harmed by sanitizing all reference to black people from education.
It's really very much the same thing. We live in a diverse society and it is not forcing anything down anyone's throats if they are actually made aware of that diversity!
So LaughingOaf, having kids recite the Pledge is a form of brainwashing because the words "under God" are included? Amazing!
Michael to mcg:
you might want to afford others their beliefs, too.
Gee, I guess this sentiment doesn't apply to Sarah Palin?
Michael:
What attacks?
Oh, I guess you haven't read Sullivan for the last month or so?
synova says: "Obama can sound thoughtful about absolutely anything. It's a talent."
Right.
It's nothing more than a "talent."
He's the nominee for the Presidency, based on his "talent."
No wonder he's so far ahead in the polls and will win...you and others underestimate him every single day.
donn, I don't read Sullivan.
I find him to be a pretty much a pompous ass.
Why not post these "attacks" you refer to.
Do you think YOUR religion is the ONLY religion on Earth? That creationism is the ONLY way humans could have entered the universe?
Why, no, Michael. But we aren't talking about how Creationists are forcing schools to teach New Earth Creationism and not even mention any other possibilities.
Are we.
We're talking about how terrible, horrible and no-good it would be if someone who at the very least didn't publicly denounce the notion of Creation, was elected to national office... at which point those young Christian men and women might be encouraged not to toss-over their faith and accept the One True Way that humans entered the universe.
Michael's gone positively Orwellian. This entire thread arose because of Michael's attack on Sarah Palin's belief system. I have spent a good deal of this thread making a general argument in defense of a certain level of respect for those and similar beliefs. So now I'm the one that's somehow in the attack position?
I'm quite content to let the content of this thread speak for itself at this point.
Michael doesn't view something he agrees with as an attack.
Certainly not his very own horror that someone might have religiously informed views of how the world came into being.
Donn, once again...I don't care about Sarah Palin's "beliefs."
But if you actually think Sarah Palin thinking dinosaurs roamed the planet at the same time as humans is some kind of "belief" that's up to you.
If I said I thought the planet was flat would you also consider that a "belief?"
Of course not, because you could easily prove the planet is not flat.
Well, I think it's fairly common knowledge, at least among the scientific community, and most thinking people, that dinosaurs were not roaming the planet with humans. (Ever read about them in the Bible? Or any history book you've ever read?)
*Do YOU think they were??
Michael:
*Do YOU think they were??
Certainly, wasn't there a movie about that with Raquel Welch?
Donn said:
Certainly, wasn't there a movie about that with Raquel Welch?
LOL! Indeed there was!
Folks might like to check out how Raquel Welch looks today (at 67 — just five years younger than that “old man” John McCain) — side by side with herself in that memorable film (millions of college men during that time frame had that poster on their dorm walls):
Raquel vs. Raquel
The story behind it
So, folks like Bill Ayers who grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance were brainwashed, huh?
Interesting article in
The Guardian today about faith and the pain response. I found it via Hot Air but The Guardian itself is very progressive newspaper.
Again, Michael, you claim this is not about religious belief in general. And I'm actually inclined to believe you. But once you concede the supernatural then there really isn't a lot that can't be "on the table" so to speak.
I don't concede the supernatural, but there is a big difference from someone having faith in things that have not been disproven and someone believing in things that are objectively false and proven so.
For example, I thought it was legit to attack Romney for Mormon beliefs that you have to deny proven facts to believe in.
Most Christians do indeed believe in a lot of crazy shit. But many Christians revise their views when science has proven that formerly held Christian beliefs are objectively false. When someone running for high office believes in stuff that are not just matters of faith, but are in defiance of proven reality, that is a legit issue.
As far as the Pledge of Allegaiance, revised version with "under God": The reason religious people feel it is so important to keep it in public schools is - obviously - because they wanna push religion on public school children. Then when a parent brings a lawsuit saying he doesn't want his child indoctrinated with religion at public school, people try and claim that parfent is trying to force atheism on children. No, that parent wants the public schools to be aabout a proper education, not brainwashing people into religion. I understand that religious people have always felt it import to impose their religions on small children, as small children are easily brainwashed. Religious people have always found it important to capture the brains of small children before they are able to decide on their own.
Otherwise, they would not care. Anyone is free to practice whatever religion they want in America. But stop messing with kids in public schools. They're there to get a basic education in the basic subjects, not to have religion forced down their throats.
import=important
LoafingOaf sez:
When someone running for high office believes in stuff that are not just matters of faith, but are in defiance of proven reality, that is a legit issue.
Once again, we have an exemplar before us asserting loudly that science “proves” things. This is utterly false. Though the sciences of paleontology, geology, planetology, and astronomy strongly suggest that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, science has not proven that it is so, and as I say again, science never proves anything.
As a particular for instance, it is not even true (much less “proven”) that the Earth can be specifically said to go around the Sun rather than vice versa. The enormously successful theory of general relativity by Albert Einstein — the modern theory of gravity, one of whose basic principles is that there is no “preferred” location or movement in the universe — informs us that it is just as valid to say that the Sun goes round the Earth as that the Earth circles the Sun.
It's so ironically amusing when people who really lack understanding of science make these kind of supposedly certain assertions about it, and thus the world in which we live.
So LaughingOaf, having kids recite the Pledge is a form of brainwashing because the words "under God" are included? Amazing!
You're amazed when someone believes in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
All real Americans do.
You're perfectly fdree to send your kids to private religious schools or be a homeschooling nutter (if you wanna make sure your kid is brainwashed into a religion before he/she can decide for him or herself). Don't shove your religion into the public schools.
Seems like a non-controversial view from me. But, you guys do wanna shove your religions on public school children, so you don't really get the basic principles of America.
LaughingOaf,
Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is sadly lacking. You might want to start with Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State. Hamburger is a professor at Columbia Law and the book is published by Harvard Press.
Get back to me when you've read it.
Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is sadly lacking. You might want to start with Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State. Hamburger is a professor at Columbia Law and the book is published by Harvard Press.
Get back to me when you've read it.
I find it extremely boring when some jack-ass cites the title of some book and says "get back to me when you've read it".
I was careful enough in my posts to say that the Pledge with "under God" in the contextr of public schools is "arguably" unconstituational (thus, arguably constitutional, as well), and that I can "respectfully disagree" with those who take a different position than I do on the matter so long as they have actually and seriously considered the constitutional issue. A governor of a state, in my view, has a duty to take the constiutional issues seriously, and not sound like a fucking dumb-ass going, "You betcha! If it was good enough for the founders, it's good enough for me!" Palin was just sucking up to the Religious Right for votes when she said that.
The fact is, "under God" was added to the Pledge in the 1950s in order "recognize a Supreme Being" at a time when "the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism". When Esienhower signed the act inserting "under God" into our Pledge of Allegiance, he stated: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held it a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, in the Newdow case. The dissent found it trivial. The majority of the Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits, because they held that Newbow lacked standing. Of the Justices remaining on the Court today, Thomas has already ruled against the 9th circuit, while Scalia had to recuse himself.
Obviously it's a tough issue in constitutional law. I recogize that. You don't. Sarah Palin is just a ditz who doesn't worry her pretty little head by informing herself before she speaks.
What makes it clear to me that the Pledge with "under God" is an attempt to shove religion on children in public schools is how strongly the religion pushers demand it be kept in public schools. I remember when the 9th Circuit ruled it unconstitutional. I tuned into C-Span and saw former KKK member, Senator Byrd, screaming that the atheists can get the hell out of America. Well, since then another judge has ruled it unconstitutional as well. Eventually a case will be ruled on its merits by the Supreme Court, and if they do the right thing, in my opinion they will find it a violation of the First Amendment.
This is a free country for atheists as well, and you should stop messing with kids' heads in public schools. They're not there to be indoctinated into religion. People should be left alone to decide their religious views for themselves when they are actually old enough to do so. This is terrifying to the religious, because they know they have to get to people in childhood when they are more easily brainwashed.
LO:
I find it extremely boring when some jack-ass cites the title of some book and says "get back to me when you've read it".
Fair enough. Here is a response I wrote on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow.
(Sorry about the formating, I need to update the article)
This is a free country for atheists as well, and you should stop messing with kids' heads in public schools.
And how, pray tell, does one educate without messing with kids heads?
They're not there to be indoctinated into religion.
And they aren't there to be indoctrinated out of it, either.
People should be left alone to decide their religious views for themselves when they are actually old enough to do so.
Ah, and now we get to the crux of it. You think that children *should* be indoctrinated out of religion. Because you don't like it.
This is terrifying to the religious, because they know they have to get to people in childhood when they are more easily brainwashed.
People acquire their values in childhood. They don't acquire them in adulthood. Things like views on honesty or how to treat other people are inculcated in early childhood. Putting religious faith in an "adult only" category is truly saying that you want it gone.
Religious parents are right to interpret this as a calculated assault on their faith and the faith of their children.
You would never suggest that an education that was careful not to mention black people was anything but damaging to black students. An education sanitized from mention of God does the same for children raised in a faith.
And your own words are clear that what you'd *like* is for children to be removed from the faith of their parents.
There should be no public education at all, frankly. Because these issues are not resolvable. The conflict of interest inherent in the government teaching about government and civic responsibility is part of it, but even more than that, education can not be ideologically neutral. It's an impossibility. Education requires the context of a world view in order to happen at all.
Post a Comment