Warning! Politics Ahead!

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, I stand by that statement. Tolerance is the sledgehammer being used by the secular progressives to knock-down and eliminate any vestige of tradition Judeo-Christian ethics, values or heritage. You could even say, as Christ is to the Christian, 'Tolerance' is to the Progressive left. But tolerance to the extreme in promoting things hostile to Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs.

And I would add that this word 'tolerance' is actually a misnomer in itself, as this supposed tolerance is always Intolerant to anything in disagreement with its proponents.

You do know what an utter whack job you sound like when you post such rediculous tripe, right?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

You do know what an utter whack job you sound like when you post such rediculous tripe, right?

Well, just follow the actions of the ACLU for clear and numerous examples of my statement. Pretty soon displaying anything of religious significance outside your own home will be considered 'hate speech' and intolerant to the tolerant crowd.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, just follow the actions of the ACLU for clear and numerous examples of my statement. Pretty soon displaying anything of religious significance outside your own home will be considered 'hate speech' and intolerant to the tolerant crowd.

What world, pray tell, do you live in?

[Blackadar]

I was going to reply, but just realized it wouldn't make a difference. Bubba is, and always will be, afraid of any beliefs other than his.

So...

The wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.
\

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

What world, pray tell, do you live in?

Well, lets see. Last Christmas public schools in New York City were not allowed to display anything of a Christian nature, but any other religion or belief was allowed. Think they got sued, didn't hear how it turned out. But that's documented.

ACLU forced the City of L.A. to remove a cross (place there for historical, not religious significance) from the City's seal. City caved and did it without taking it to court.

In Canada, last I have heard, reading certain passages from the Bible in a public setting could constitute 'hate speech' and would be considered a criminal act. Think at least one case possibly in the west was being heard.

Public schools everywhere have no problem promoting graphic displays of birth control methods including the distributionof condoms and of gay/lesbian
themed promotions but take anti-Christian policies to such an extreme that many as we sit here are being sued for denying students their right of free speech (One case in Ann Arbor Pioneer High School last year had the judge fine and scold the school authorities for outright discrimination vs. Christian advocates while promoting everything and anything else. Judge went so far as to compare school authorities with using tactics straight out of NAZI Germany. Know this is an overused example, but a Federal Judge making this point is noteworthy.)

Just a few examples of the 'country that I live in."

[SirFozzie]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

pretty important sentence, don't you think Bubba?

you say that the nation is moving away from "judeo-christian" values as if this nation was founded to be strictly a judeo-christian nation.

I agree, things can be taken too far, for example, the lawsuits about trying to ban the words "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the calls to ban Christmas trees and creche scenes at Christmas time. There is such thing as swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

But the US is not, has not, and hopefully will never be a Judeo-Christian nation solely. Seems to me they were being pretty TOLERANT about letting all religions under the tent, so to speak up there in that sentence I quoted, now, aren't they?

Yes, you have the right to bray your insanities about how the Zionists are attempting to take over the US and the World by promoting that God made all mankind equal under His benevolent view.

We also have a right to point, laugh, and explain the inconsistensies and the inanites in your feeble argument.

This topic came about because an author, who you agree with, wrote things that you agree with (at least, wrote things you've heard about the book.. it's still not clear if you read it). Until the thread degenerated (and even now, some people are trying to engage you in rational discussion, most of which you discard, take one or two sentence, twist it in a way the speaker never intended, and use it to cast aspersions on the person disagreeing with you), people mentioned things that cast doubt on the authors message (quite frankly, to me he's doing the same thing you're doing, taking the words of someone else and twisting them to support your viewpoint).

For example, do you find it quite odd that the author is one of the creators of a society that stated that the nation has too many people of a non Anglo-Europe-centric viewpoint? I could make several jokes, or compare it to certain people of the past.. I won't though. I will say that his (to me) twisted viewpoint makes anything else he utters automatically suspect.

[AENeuman]

"I don't have a problem with Christ, I have a problem with Christians." The Edge.

Until language is accepted as a more emotional/spiritual (ie symbolic) medium rather than empirical/rational then silly arguments like this will continue. This tolerance argument is like debating if all produce is organic.

[miked]

Got lost along the way, but here is one site with some Miller-Urey info. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html.

Well, I stand by that statement. Tolerance is the sledgehammer being used by the secular progressives to knock-down and eliminate any vestige of tradition Judeo-Christian ethics, values or heritage.

You seem to be forgetting about a significant number of people in your statement. Would you be for me teaching your child about the Hindu version of creation in science class? Or perhaps the Navajo version? If you can't see that it's not the school's position to be teaching "unscientific theories" (I'm not saying they are or are not true, just not investigated on a scientific basis) then maybe you should shield your children from the tolerance-imposing public schools.

[KWhit]

Well, Bubba, you have succeeded with me.

I am generally a very tolerant person. I believe that tolerance is extremely important in society today. However, there is no way in Hell thatI can tolerate your ignorant tripe any more.

No wonder you're so religious. Jesus is probably the only person you can talk to any more.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

pretty important sentence, don't you think Bubba?

you say that the nation is moving away from "judeo-christian" values as if this nation was founded to be strictly a judeo-christian nation.

I agree, things can be taken too far, for example, the lawsuits about trying to ban the words "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the calls to ban Christmas trees and creche scenes at Christmas time. There is such thing as swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

But the US is not, has not, and hopefully will never be a Judeo-Christian nation solely. Seems to me they were being pretty TOLERANT about letting all religions under the tent, so to speak up there in that sentence I quoted, now, aren't they?

Yes, you have the right to bray your insanities about how the Zionists are attempting to take over the US and the World by promoting that God made all mankind equal under His benevolent view.

We also have a right to point, laugh, and explain the inconsistensies and the inanites in your feeble argument.

This topic came about because an author, who you agree with, wrote things that you agree with (at least, wrote things you've heard about the book.. it's still not clear if you read it). Until the thread degenerated (and even now, some people are trying to engage you in rational discussion, most of which you discard, take one or two sentence, twist it in a way the speaker never intended, and use it to cast aspersions on the person disagreeing with you), people mentioned things that cast doubt on the authors message (quite frankly, to me he's doing the same thing you're doing, taking the words of someone else and twisting them to support your viewpoint).

For example, do you find it quite odd that the author is one of the creators of a society that stated that the nation has too many people of a non Anglo-Europe-centric viewpoint? I could make several jokes, or compare it to certain people of the past.. I won't though. I will say that his (to me) twisted viewpoint makes anything else he utters automatically suspect.

I think that I already stated I saw the guy speak for about an hour on C-Span, did not read his book. If I do agree with the man's outlook on limited government and some of his original founding father's visions of the future shape of the U.S. under the Constitution I'm further accused of being in lock-step with the guy's supposed anti-Zionist agenda.

Point about the schools is basic and consistent. With a growing fracture of our culture into different ways of living altogether, we no longer enjoy the mostly homogenious outlook of what our country is all about and its future. Which most historians would say crystalized for the most part after ww2 when the country became an industrial giant concentrated in urban rather than agricultural areas.

Given that, does it really make sense to keep funneling our kids into state-sponsered one-size-fits-all education camps that even Bill Gates (a big liberal) is now stating is obsolete? Let the market forces take over, create vouchers and allow parents the choice to send their kids to get the kind of education that they, not you or the state, deems appropriate. And that means an end to large, centralized schools. And also alot of conflicts regarding the practice of beliefs or lifestyle.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by miked

Got lost along the way, but here is one site with some Miller-Urey info. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html.



You seem to be forgetting about a significant number of people in your statement. Would you be for me teaching your child about the Hindu version of creation in science class? Or perhaps the Navajo version? If you can't see that it's not the school's position to be teaching "unscientific theories" (I'm not saying they are or are not true, just not investigated on a scientific basis) then maybe you should shield your children from the tolerance-imposing public schools.

Tried your link, didn't work. Your argument misses one very important fact: The history and heritage of this country was and is based on the tennets, ethics and values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Not those of any other, including (though that is changing today) those of secular humanism. Therefore Judeo-Christian philosophical ideals if not religious intent should always be highlight in our past and continued to be taught to all kids today.

Again, I'm talking about the heritage upon which our laws and beliefs in such things as equality and fairness are based upon, not religious instruction (put that in when I got the mental picture of smoke coming out of SirFozzie's ears.)

[miked]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Tried your link, didn't work. Your argument misses one very important fact: The history and heritage of this country was and is based on the tennents, ethics and values of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Not those of any other, including (though that is changing today) those of secular humanism. Therefore Judeo-Christian philosophical ideals if not religious intent should always be highlight in our past and continued to be taught to all kids today.

Again, I'm talking about the heritage upon which our laws and beliefs in such things as equality and fairness are based upon, not religious instruction (put that in when I got the mental picture of smoke coming out of SirFozzie's ears.)

Science isn't really based on the tennents, ethics and values of our country's heritage. In fact, a lot of the important science has been done by foreigners. There are many people that believe we should be teaching Judeo-Christian creationism (probably most are Christian) in science class. In what context should it be taught...US history? Where should it be taught in public schools. My point is, as long as there are Native Americans, Hindus, non-Judeo Christians paying taxes for these schools, all have to have their stories represented equally.

Anyway, link works ok for me...

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I think that I already stated I saw the guy speak for about an hour on C-Span, did not read his book. If I do agree with the man's outlook on limited government and some of his original founding father's visions of the future shape of the U.S. under the Constitution I'm further accused of being in lock-step with the guy's supposed anti-Zionist agenda.

Point about the schools is basic and consistent. With a growing fracture of our culture into different ways of living altogether, we no longer enjoy the mostly homogenious outlook of what our country is all about and its future. Which most historians would say crystalized for the most part after ww2 when the country became an industrial giant concentrated in urban rather than agricultural areas.

Given that, does it really make sense to keep funneling our kids into state-sponsered one-size-fits-all education camps that even Bill Gates (a big liberal) is now stating is obsolete? Let the market forces take over, create vouchers and allow parents the choice to send their kids to get the kind of education that they, not you or the state, deems appropriate. And that means an end to large, centralized schools. And also alot of conflicts regarding the practice of beliefs or lifestyle.

You know Bubba, that's the most coherent thing I've heard you say. I'm not sure if I agree, but at least you put your best argument forward.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

You know Bubba, that's the most coherent thing I've heard you say. I'm not sure if I agree, but at least you put your best argument forward.

Thanks! Check my new one out!

[QuikSand]

Just informational, not critical...

The word you want to be using here is tenets.


Best of luck.

[Franklinnoble]

Just food for thought...

Those of you giving Bubba such a hard time might want to make sure you're right. I'm not necessarily saying that everything Bubba is saying is right, or even sound doctrine. But a lot of you are taking a shotgun approach to your arguments, and you're offending more people than just him here with some of your statements.

Regardless of your opinion of Bubba, some of you are talking some pretty scary smack about the Almighty, and while you might be totally comfortable discounting everything written in the Bible, if you're mistaken, the penalties aren't pleasant.

I'm not personally offended either way - I'm the sort of born-again neanderthal that you all poke fun of for having a literal view of the Bible and creationism. I won't argue with you, because it's not my job to change your mind about these things, and, generally, it's a waste of breath. I used to be just like you. I'm not stupid. I have an education. The Holy Spirit changed me. I'm still a work in progress. I'm still a dirtbag most of the time. But I'm working on it, and I fear the Lord. Which is the beginning of wisdom, according to Him.

To Bubba... your heart is in the right place, and I applaud your zeal. I am not trying to discourage you.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just a seeker of knowledge, but one that understands that there is a spiritual side to things that many reject out of hand because it cannot be 'scientifically' proven. Sidenote to that: A large and growing number of scientists believe in a spiritual higher being, one that is responsible for 'creation', regardless of how that word is construed.

That is just utter nonesense. Show me the facts, show me this large and growing number of scientists. And don't show me some nut-job scientist who got his degree from ABC colleges. The validity of creationism as a means of explaining origins is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream science. Creationism science, which trys to help explain the unexplainable, is fundamentally flawed. Since it cannot stand up to rigorious scientific testing.


Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.