kinda screws over his "protect and defend the Constitution" oath
Question: Aren't you guys just a little embarassed to have a president who doesn't accept the theory of evolution? I mean--really--the earth is 10,000 years old??? Have we been teleported back to the middle ages?
but you seem certain that evolution explains everything and I will assume that you do not believe in Christianity or any other Higher Being. As you critisize this man for his beliefs, have you critisized others in his capacity for the same? Do you feel that to be the leader of our country one must be an atheist?
I am so $&*@# busy and here I am responding to this.
I think the tension in this thread really captures an essential weakness in our common understanding. On the one hand, there are some sects of Christianity that argue against evolution and on the other, there are scientists who propose a mechanistic universe. And to me, both models are equally lacking.
Among the most important needs in the 21st Century is the need for a better integration between science and spirit - that which is True, Beautiful and Good. This is the basis for moral action. We now have access to the collective wisdom of a whole planet. Religious beliefs no longer need to be based solely on where one is born. There is abundant science looking at the religous experience, from neuroscience to medical research to....
I know this is mainly just me, but I think the main challenge we face is a better articulation of what the word "god" means. There are better ways of thinking about it than we have that are less balderdash & bullshit, which provide better guidance for authentic human development - where science and spirit are no longer separate domains, but both contribute to real understanding. Reality is what it is, and precedes our beliefs about it. We're right at the edge of a clearer articulation of this. Concepts of "God" shift with shifts in cultures, and we are in the midst of transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. I am not one who prays lightly, but I do pray that a saner "God" emerges in the minds of people.
OK, back to work.
You spoke nicely and with great passion.
However, I have one hypothetical question.
Suppose God died. The evidence that God died was incontrovertible. There was no doubt God was dead. His corpse was made evident. IOW it is a given God is dead.
The question is:
How would humankind behave?
Would humankind suddenly become hedonistic knowing that there was no longer an afterlife? No longer a judgement since God had died and would no longe be there to judge you when you died?
Would humankind behave in the Kantian manner from an innate belief in moral good?
If there is a reality worth of the word god, it is at the genesis of all reality - all in time & space. The Buddhists, who are not theists, articulate it in terms of the eternal now, more or less. The point is, either there is conscious awareness at the source of reality or there isn't. So "god" isn't an entity that could die.
Most models of adult development include the stages where identity, itself, is increasingly tied to this pervasive consciousness. All belief systems are approximations & metaphos describing this consciousness (well, some belief systems are more profound than others) and/or directives for fostering the awareness of it.
Finally, regardless of the stage of adult development one finds himself in, there is a relentless pull, generally in the form of pain, depression or meaninglessness - but also in moments of elevated states (great sex, for example - see Tantric Yoga), toward greater maturity. Of course, people have a million very potent ways to deny, ignore or numb this away and steadfastly refuse to grow. At the source of this urge is "God" which is within all reality (or not at all, by definition). So if all systems of belief about God died, then the pursuit would remain. But if God itself died, poof, no more anything.
including the theory of evolution. Yes it is a theory, but it is a scientific theory based tons and tons of other scientific research that continues to strengthen that theory. Creationism is a religious theory it has no basis in fact and no legitimate hard evidence to back it up. It is just not the same thing and should NOT be treated as such. It short changes our children to do so. By denigrading science, we will ultimately give the edge in scientific experiment and capabilities to other nations. China, Japan, Europe and even Honk Kong & Korea are really stepping up in this regard. Do we really want to give that edge to them because we do not beleive in science? It is just plain stupid.
... God give you and others a brain to observe the world and it’s fossil history. What you find is absolutely ingenious: living things aren't exact copies of each other and some of these things adapt better to the changing circumstances of the world than others. Things change and species change. The information here helps people grow better food, improve human and animal health, design new computer algorithms, see how life could arise and adapt to other earths, ...
GWB and some folks in the GOP say that’s wrong – you should ignore your God Given Senses, the brain God gave you, and the evidence in front of you and trust completely in a translation of a collection of loosely connected writings created around 1800 to 3000 years ago. I, for one, think your position is irresponsible, non Christian, and unreligous.
Now my rant really starts – I apologize.
------------------------------------------------------------
GWB and you do not worship Christ or God – not even close. The thing you worship – the idol – is the “Christ” you learned about in Sunday school. He was born in the Middle East, but the image you have of him is a blond haired man who looks like a German. He was born of a Virgin -- but nobody told you that the original translators mistranslated the term for "good woman". Nobody mentioned to you about the inconsistencies in the Gospels. Nobody told you that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was his homosexual love for Timothy. …
The Idol you worship says that the bible is literally true and you have to believe all of it in a very literal way (no mature interpretations from thinking or growing up). That is why you and GWB feel that God created the world the way it was described in Genesis. The same people that told you this fundamental approach was correct ignored a few things (as do you when you hobby).
We do not have to discuss Leviticus, because Christ promised a new covenant. However, a careful reading of the New Testament should convince you that Christ is much more concerned about your treatment of the poor than he is about homosexuals (Christ never mentions homosexuality), spreading “freedom”, or tax policy (remember “give unto Caesar the things that are Ceaser’s…”.). You really aren’t worried about taxes going to Ceasar anyway, -- you are pissed the government is giving your hard-earned to poor people,
Selling all that you have and giving it to the poor is Christ like, but it is not Republican. It is not even very Democrat (our friend James would call it Socialism). But then again, it is "easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven". Much as you like, you can’t even fall back on “… the poor you will always have with you…” because you forget the rest of what Christ spoke in that particular verse and the context in which he said it.
Christ said tons about the poor and the oppressed people. His Sermon on the Mount is so profound that I, for one, can not understand all the implications. However, I do not think we could turn it into something that gives much comfort and support for our military policy, state sponsored executions, and our actions in Iraq.
The GOP and GWB takes religion and turns it into issues about Queers, killing our enemies, and tax policy. The Democrats avoid framing their positions as moral issues (which they clearly are). The country loses from GOP hypocrisy and Democrat pussyfooting
Flame away, I probably deserve it.
Harry
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap 
Oh BTW, there are SOME evangelicals who are FOR social justice... They helped elect Jimmy Carter.
Emmitt Fox wrote an excellent book called "sermon on The Mount". He presents some revolutionary concepts and sets precepts on their head. If you take my word on nothing else, take my word on this. You'll love the book.
[email protected]
is a very good read that you might enjoy if you're as wary as I am of organized religion, and believe that "God is too big to fit into one religion".
As far as flaming goes Harry,
"GWB and you do not worship Christ or God – not even close"
Who are you to make that judgement?
RLTW
... at least WRT god. As far as the "christianity" is concerned, I understand the theology and what the bible says about thingsl.
I'm not personally a christian -- probably more closely akin to a buddist.
I apologize for the rant, I did not come off as humble as I deserve to be.
Harry
While I think there is great truth to much you said, Harry, I also think there is likely sincerity in Bush's approach. Not that this sincerity isn't perhaps a dangerous thing....
The point is that "God" is not a thing. Independent of Its existence and nature, it is held by humans as an idea, a perception, an intuition. More than perhaps anything else in life, it's identity is a function of the believer's own maturity - and is ultimately a projection of what one can imagine as ultimate possibility. This doesn't mean one belief is more sincere than another - but it does mean these beliefs can and do have sometimes serious consequences in their application.
you guys backed a guy who claimed that a blow job was not sex...
Next time you see your favorite provider, just let her give you a blowjob and then tell her you don't owe any money because it wasn't sex, and see how that flies...
that have to do with this thread? especailly on THIS board. He lied about an affair. And?????? How did this really affect YOUR day to day life? Did you taxes go up? did anyone die? No. But this way of thinking is typical of religious people. They are so frikken worried about everyones elses private lives and bedroom activities instead of focusing on themselves.
Isn't there some crap in the Bible about "he who is without sin can cast the first stone?" And since the Bible says we are all sinners, it would appear to me that people should just leave each other alone. If I do something that you think is a sin (for example, see an escort), then it is between me and god and you should keep the hell away. If it is a sin, and god exists, then I'll have to deal with it when I die, and I can accept with that.
also, I don't think the President needs to be an athiest....he just needs to keep his particular religious beleifs off me.
the point I am making is easy enough here. The question was how can we back a man who takes a stance that seems so ridiculous to you.
My response, the same you you guys supported your POTUS when he took ridiculous stances on issues.
AND????..... "banana"
Lied under oath during a court hearing, this denying an American citizen their day in court. When push came to shove and he had to make a choice between the office he holds and the oath he took or his own ass, he chose himself.
The President breaking the law, YES THAT DOES AFFECT ME!!!
"IF" the original poster is correct, and Bush really thinks that the world is 10,000 years old or whatever, because he beleives in the bible over science, then he accepts blind faith over some pretty darn good scientific theory (ya know, fossils, etc). To me, that is pretty crazy and really does make me think he's dumb.
What that has to do with clinton lying inder oath is beyond me. If thats your best response to what Bush beleives, then you can just use the "clinton" answer all the time, whenever anyone dares to question "W" and his policies and beleifs. To me, that makes for a pretty pointless discussion.
Now if you really want to rehash the Clinton / Lewinski thing, Ken Starr's investigation was a political witch hunt based on ideology, spending millions of dollars to bust the guy for getting a BJ. And while he did lie about it, which I DO think was wrong for him to do, you must accept this "law breaking" in its context....this was a victimless crime. For example, have you ever driven a little over the speed limit when you knew there were no cops around?
Anyway, I'd like to hear your response to the original post...BTW, you can be critical of the POTUS and still be a good conservative.....lol.
Cheers!
My problem is not so much with the BJ. Let's face it, that is why a lot of us are on this board 
The main issue I have was his lying under oath. It's like Nixon (although what Nixon did was much worse), but the cover-up was worse than the crime...
Anyways, enough about him, that's old news...
the one thing I would say about Faith, is that it IS the ability to believe in the absence of proof. If you have to have it proven to you, well, it's not really faith then, it it.
In which he wasted over $75 million in taxpayer funds simply to expose said blowjob. Where's your conservative indignation at over-reaching government in THAT case? Or is it an appropriate expenditure of the national treasury to track down the personal peccadillos of our politicians? Or is it ONLY acceptable when they are Democrats?
Just wondering where you stand on the type of EXPENSIVE witch hunt that Starr embarked on, and WHY you believe that it was appropriate in the first place? And shouldn't we apply the same investigatory standards to Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, among others?
If Clinton hadn't LIED and COVERED UP for so long, this would have not taken as long or cost as much. The high dollar amount is DIRECTLY related to Clinton's dodging. Oh, and it wasn't about a BJ, it was about him basically saying "FUCK MY OATH", I'm going to save my own ass....
BTW, if you can prove Ken Starr abused his position, please do so, you will MAKE HEADLINES, otherwise you're just pissed he caught your guy.
In regards to Newt or Delay, not sure what youa re talking about here, but if they broke the law I've got no problem with a prosecution effort, but do not pretend it is on the same level as the POTUS breaking the law.
Frankly, it's entire purpose was to humiliate Clinton. There is no judicial purpose for this. The fact is, Clinton ONLY broke the law in an attempt to evade an improper investigation. If the investigation never happens, no lawbreaking.
This is analogous to a Policeman improperly persecuting you say, by stopping you repeatedly for unwarrented traffic stops, and you then commit a crime by ignoring him the next time he tries to stop you. The "crime" is FAR less serious than the abuse of process which led to it.
Starr did not, in fact "catch" my guy. What he did was badger my guy into committing a crime. The problem with what you are saying is that the investigation actually preceded the crime. There was no crime PRIOR to the abusive, improper investigation, only afterwards in response to it.
It's a shame that you can't seem to grasp that simple distinction.
The way things are SUPPOSED to work is, The Justice system investigates and catches people for crimes they have ALREADY committed. NOT for crimes that they only committed in response to improper harrassment BY the justice department. What Starr did was the type of stuff that totalitarian states do to harrass and abuse their citizenry.
And as for Delay and Gingrich, were we to follow Starr's model re Clinton, there need not even BE any wrongdoing INITIALLY, since the wrongdoing need only come from their trying to avoid the embarrasment and harrassment of the investigations. Certainly, there is AT LEAST as much worthy of investigating Gingrich and DeLay as there was of Clinton at the time Starr began his witch-hunt. The point is, you investigate ONLY AFTER crimes have occurred. NOT where blowjobs have occurred. The fact that Clinton committed a crime AFTER being harrassed into it is DWARFED by the misuse of public power in carrying out the investigation, in the ABSENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING up to that point. Do you get it now?
-- Modified on 2/12/2005 1:50:57 AM
establishing a pattern is something police do all the time!!
He was being investigated for making advances/attacking another female, so they started checking out his relationships with others, JACKPOT!!
BTW, that is just good investigative technique, because they were able to "catch him with his pants down"
-- Modified on 2/14/2005 4:27:51 PM
kinda screws over his "protect and defend the Constitution" oath
The ONLY alleged "attack" was the trumped up nonsense for which Paula Jones was paid many tens of thousands of dollars to pursue by the right wing Clinton-haters. Which was the supposed justification for the entire Starr investigation
THAT's a textbook example of criminal abuse of process.
Get a clue as to what ACTUALLY HAPPENED in this case.
well, I guess if it is you boy Bill, it is ok in your book is what you are saying...
I don't give a DAMN why she pursued it!!! If it is the truth, it is the truth.
SOOOOO, since we now have an attack case, a pattern of behavior is bound to be investigated..
Instead of bitching about everyone else, whay don't you consider placing the blame where it belongs, on the person that actually did the deed...
... do you think she saw it as sex the same way you think of sex.
Clinton cheated on his wife and tried to lie his way out of it. SFW?
What does it have to do with science vs creationism? Does GWB get a pass on this because he only fucks Laura?
Now peopel are publicly condemened for having beliefs in religion as opposed to science.
Use the internet and modern technology for the 21st century equivalent of inquisition.
Luckily, wehaven't devloved to the physical torture of the past, but the humiliation factor is still there.
The so called "enlightened intelligensia" promote scorn and ridicule for those dare profess an acceptance of religious beliefs.
It is too bad you will have to wait until your death to find out if there is any truth to religious teachings, however, those who believe practice something called "faith".
Two challenges: first, not all "religious beliefs" are valid - just because I believe something doesn't make it true. And for the life of me, I can't respect a lot of the belief systems out there. To the degree they fail to incorporate valid science, for example, they fail the sniff test. Second, one does not have to die to validate faith. The changes in the quality of living and the expression of moral intent, not to mention brain-wave functioning - all evidence the validity (or lack thereof) of spiritual development.
No. not condemmed, but ridiculed. Cpndemmnation is what the right wing reactionary fundies do BTW.
It is ridiculous to claim the earth is only 10,000 years old, as Bush claims. It wouold be ridiculous to say the sun revolves around the earth. But that was what fundies believe hundreds of years ago.
If Bush's relgiion stated he must believe in geocentrism, would you ridicule him? or say he was smart?
When religious beliefs are so silly as to be ridiculous, they should be laughed at.
Tell me. Do you believe the earth is only 10,000 years old?
I bet you 100 dollars I cannot get a yes or no answer from you on that question, but instead you will duck and jive.
I never said I believed, just that I see the penduluum has swung the other way.
You owe me $100. I studied geology and I know the earth is older than 10,000 years.
You, however, act like you are only 10 years old.
Are you embarrassed or not that Bush does not believe in science? That was the question.
You didn't read and you didn't understand.
No point in trying to explain.
-- Modified on 2/7/2005 11:36:06 PM
as opposed to a weak spined political hack who can't decide what his views are without sticking his finger in the air to try and figure out who he needs to pander to to get the most mileage.
Because, to me, the #1 most important characteristic of a leader is definitely Intellect, and Intellectual curiosity, and an insistence on getting the facts, without pre-judging a decision. Without that, one is not qualified to be dog catcher, let alone President.
I'd certainly rather have someone who vacillates and acts on the political winds, than a mis-informed ideologue, because basing decisions like going to war on ideologies and principles that are NOT based on science threatens the world with Armegeddon. And even worse, when that person is a religious ideologue, we get the sense that he does not fear Armegeddon, since he is convinced that God's judgement will find him right in the after-life.
Note that the above description applies equally to both George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Each of whom has, by his actions, decreed a war that resulted in the deaths of many thousands of innocents, all because they felt that their religious principles were more important than reason and logic.
I personally think that there is no logical distinction between Bin Laden's attack on the U.S. in 9-11, and Bush's attack on Iraq. Both were deemed necessary to stamp out a great evil that threatened the core of their beliefs.
So, yes, OF COURSE I would rather have had Kerry as president, no matter how unprincipled and craven he was, than an unthinking, unquestioning religeous zealot like Bush, who has established himself through his Iraq campaign to be the moral equivalent of Bin Laden, only with a bigger arsenal to be reckless with.
And, BTW, Bush has now gotten killed an order of magnitude more innocent people in Iraq than Bin Laden has in his entire career.
Now answer THIS question. (It was included in the original post)
If Bush's relgiion stated he must believe in geocentrism, would you ridicule him? or say he was smart?
You can accuse me of "duck(ing) and jive(ing) on this one, since that's your modus operendi, however, I answered your "bet" question, which was:
"Tell me. Do you believe the earth is only 10,000 years old?
I bet you 100 dollars I cannot get a yes or no answer from you on that question, but instead you will duck and jive."
Your continued display of narrow minded, senseless bigotry and hatred rivals that of KCSHYGUY and sdstud.
Bottom line-YOU are the one who should be ridiculed because you have established your ignorance.
GWB can have all the faith he wants. I just don't want him using his faith to decide how to do research in molecular biology. His faith is falsfied by observation and historical evidence.
Here is Funtime66's version of your rant
--------------------------------------------------
Now people are condemned for telling the truth as they see it about negros and jews.
The liberals, the banks, the so-called "intellectuals", and even the jews themselves have made it almost impossible for people to speak the truth that "real" americans believed since the founding of our country.
They don't torture people that speak the old time truths or put them in jail, they just call them "crazy" or "bigots" or ostrasize them.
I wish they could see -- the country is going to heck in a handbasket.
I don't believe in any of that nonsense but I don't really see where Bush's views on evolution really matter in terms of his fitness for President. If he starts believing the lord will protect us from terrorists, then we have a problem, but sometimes I think that's more akin to the liberal solution.
All kidding aside, what does it matter? Will Bush seek to ban teaching of evolution in schools - No chance. I also wonder how much of this stuff he really believes vs. just says he believes to nuzzle up to the bible belt.
At the end of the day, its about choices. No candidate is perfect but I liked the overall Bush platform more than that from Kerry.
BTW: Would you be comfortable with a President from Boston who claims to be a Red Sox fan and doesn't remember Pedro Martinez's name?
So basically what you admit to, is this:
You would support a president who is so ignorant he has n critical thinking skill and believes that science is overruled by faith. IOW a president who would believe the sun revolves around the earth if his sacred text or religous leaders told hims so.
or
You believe and support a president who is so venal and corrupt as to deliberately lie to christians in or to get their vote.
Take you pick. Either way you have a president who is not only not suited to be president but not suited to pick up dog poop for a living.
That was why he never read the August 6th PDB and was resposible for the largest intelligence failure in the history of this nation and maybe the world....
Goog God he sat in a class room reading MY PET GOAT for 7 minutes while the country was under attack! Give me a break. Everything is about faith with this dolt. WMD's, Tax Cuts, Deficit, Jobs, you name it....he certainly has faith, but it never turns out the way he is praying it will because he does NOT LOOK AT FACTS & EVIDENCE -- it is the same thing with science and evolution. He is a no brainer kinda guy. Faith is a whole lot easier him.
-- Modified on 2/8/2005 6:40:11 PM
I really try to keep things civil and informed here. But your post is not only a completely unfair assessment (tax cuts are about his faith...never heard that one), its also incredibly insulting to me (didn't I clearly state I'm not one of those "faith" people but I voted for him for policy reasons?).
I'd write a response but I really don't think you deserve one given how little you apparently listen. Show me some respect and you'll get it in return.
His tax cuts were suppose to produce a huge amount of jobs. Remember? That is what I mean by faith -- he just BELIEVES in these ideological ideas when the actual history and evidence said it would not work.
It is all about "belief" with this guy.
Those of use "in the know" realize that the "earth" was created by the Magaretheans specfically for a race of highly inteligent aliens (currently resembling lab mice) to supply the question for the ultimate answer of "42".
Now, the thread is closed, we're done.
Let's move on.
You have 5 minutes.
"Don't panic"