Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > To each his own. Toleration, not denigration.
> > Yes,
> > > science class is science class - they should
> > also
> > > have religion classes (for those who choose
> to
> > > take them) and do comparative teachings on
> > > creationism vs evolution. Pretty basic stuff.
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. How are creationism and
> evolution
> > comparable?
>
> Creationism speaks to God creating the world, the
> skies, the animals, the people, etc. Christian
> religions have adjusted (somewhat) through the
> years/decade/centuries as science has advanced in
> trying to fit many points of what science has been
> able to prove within the bible teachings.
> Evolution could be said to be a granular breakdown
> of creationism (could be) - in particular since
> the bible wasn't written until after man had
> evolved to a point of looking to better understand
> the processes/events going on around them.

I realize that 'creationism' is a somewhat liquid word. It can refer to a lot of different things. In the context of this thread though, I think that creationism has a connotation that is in opposition to evolution. What you suggest is theistic evolution, something I don't really have any truck with (well, other then I think it's wrong, but so what?).

> Although, my point on religion wasn't just the
> bible and creationism. They should teach other
> religions/beliefs as well. And as part of that,
> they should do comparative religion and show the
> commonalities and differences between them, the
> common myths of religion, and how religion has
> either helped or hurt the development of modern
> civilization.

I'm going to try to cut through some of the miscommunication by asking you to be specific - where should they teach this? A religion course or in the science classroom?

> You do understand - I am not someone who believes
> the bible is the word of God. There are a lot of
> different religions in the world. What I don't
> want to see is this absolute dedication to science
> that just says because you have religious beliefs
> you are somehow a lesser person because of it.

I'm not in favor of some sort of absolute dedication to science. At the same time, I'm not in favor of watering down science so that it becomes an 'ideas and religion' course. Science is not absolutist. It is not about proof and certainty. Perhaps students should be taught this sort of thing in a philosophy or critical thinking course.

> That seems to be what I am hearing argued here.

Some people probably are arguing just that. At the same time though, in the market place of ideas, the ideas that cannot be supported should be held up for inspection. Beliefs shouldn't just be given a free intellectual pass because their dissolution would hurt people's feelings.

> There are folks that are firm believers in their
> respective religion, and they attempt to live
> their lives to a standard they believe is correct.
> There are others who say they are "of a religion"
> and act anything but. There are people claim
> atheism, and then act like that gives them the
> moral authority to tell everyone else that isn't
> an atheist what they should/shouldn't believe.

Yes, there are a-holes in every spectrum.

> These days, for the most part, religion plays as
> large a role in keeping the peace as it does in
> causing strife. Most of the strife is caused by
> folks who cling to seriously outdated beliefs, and
> those who indoctrinate their children with the
> more violent passages of their respective
> religions (see radical Islam and some minor
> christian cults - Branch Davidian as an example).
> Essentially the folks who want to manipulate
> religion to serve their own ends.

I largely agree with this - however I think we differ in that I would agree with Richard Harris in that we need to have these discussions. We need to make people uncomfortable about the 'bad' portions of religion. The trouble today is that the fundamentalists often get a pass because of the moderates and the moderates keep a strangle hold on the conversation.

> Most folks are
> "religious" in the US because it gives them
> comfort in their lives - maybe they aren't as well
> learned as some other folks, maybe they are
> looking for guidance or a purpose so they are not
> depressed, etc.

I would actually disagree with this - I would say that most people are religious because of their upbringings, but I can agree with you somewhat here in some cases.

> The folks you want to look out for
> are the manipulators of faith that use it to their
> own ends. But if you want to gain acceptance for
> the reasons why science is better than religion,
> you need to setup programs that can teach the
> reasons why without making it a confrontation on
> why they are stupid or lazy or just outright loons
> for believing what they believe.

I don't look at it as a choice between science and religion. It seems to me that they are very different metaphysical things. Granted, you could shove them both into the epistemological field, with science as empiricism and religion as revealed revelation, but I don't think that would capture all of religion.

In any event, science is a way of knowing about the world - one that works and one that most people use (if only for pragmatic reasons). Religion *can* work like that, but most people do not use it in that fashion. In other words, I don't think that the 'spheres' necessarily overlap (so I kind of agree with Gould's non-overlapping magisteria).

> The way most
> people go about it, they just get people's backs
> up, or back them into a corner - at which point
> they will most certainly redouble their efforts to
> make sure you don't succeed.

Some do, some don't. With firmly entrenched beliefs - be they religion, political, etc - it's not as simple as tearing down beliefs or offering them rhetorical honey.

Holy shit... this thread went full retard.

Quick breakdown:

1. Teach Science in Science Class
2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class, or even a primer class on religion(s) - the religious classes have lesson topics to deal with how science and religion collide, why, and discussion on where they may co-exist.
3. Any time a question comes up in Science class by someone who is religious that wants to deal with religious connotations of the lesson, point out to them that topic is covered in the religion classes.

I would agree that some people go to church due to their religious upbringing. I also know that most kids STOP going to church at some point in their lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I don't know of any kid in my family who just decided to follow on. During college and the military, most of them stopped going. Later there were a few that decided to go back - either as part of getting married, looking for guidance, etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly fundamentalist compound you would have little choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the norm in our country.

I think we need to be more inclusive of religion in schools. The primer course would be used to at least give examples/coverage of other religions not offered in the primary electives - until such time that there was a demand for it to be taught as a separate course. But certainly religious electives could count as social studies. I think classes like these would go a long way toward bringing folks back together and working through issues, rather than shutting them out and acting like they shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2010 11:00AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quick breakdown:
>
> 1. Teach Science in Science Class
> 2. Teach Religion as electives in their own class,
> or even a primer class on religion(s) - the
> religious classes have lesson topics to deal with
> how science and religion collide, why, and
> discussion on where they may co-exist.

I think that a comparative religion course, should perhaps, be mandatory due to it's influence on people.

> 3. Any time a question comes up in Science class
> by someone who is religious that wants to deal
> with religious connotations of the lesson, point
> out to them that topic is covered in the religion
> classes.

I don't think that religion should be part of the class, however, I recognize that it sometimes comes up and I think the teacher should have the freedom to address it. I just don't think it should be part of the curriculum.

> I would agree that some people go to church due to
> their religious upbringing. I also know that most
> kids STOP going to church at some point in their
> lives - all the kids in my family did, my nephews
> and nieces all have (and we have quite a few). I
> don't know of any kid in my family who just
> decided to follow on. During college and the
> military, most of them stopped going. Later there
> were a few that decided to go back - either as
> part of getting married, looking for guidance,
> etc. I suppose if you were in a strictly
> fundamentalist compound you would have little
> choice - but that is certainly not, by far, the
> norm in our country.

I would concede that there are probably a multitude of reasons beyond upbringing.

> I think we need to be more inclusive of religion
> in schools. The primer course would be used to at
> least give examples/coverage of other religions
> not offered in the primary electives - until such
> time that there was a demand for it to be taught
> as a separate course. But certainly religious
> electives could count as social studies. I think
> classes like these would go a long way toward
> bringing folks back together and working through
> issues, rather than shutting them out and acting
> like they shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'd agree with this.

On these points I don't think there's a lot of difference between us.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Quick breakdown:

> On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> difference between us.

I'd have to disagree with this approach

1) Comparative religion is already taught in elementary schools - my 5th grader was working through compulsory units on jewish and other mythology (mandated by the state) see http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no mention of the FSM though

Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught before evolution was even mentioned.

2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto through the morning chant of the pledge of allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those godless ruskies" under god clause

3) What's missing is not more religion in the schools but more and better science - part of the issue is that there are so few scientists teaching in schools,and so few students taking hard science. The real triumph of the scientific revolution is when you see it in the round - when you see how the issues of scale and complexity impact on the world you see around you from cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how different species are and why, how ecosystems adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging 'faith based organizations' is so destructive

4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on American public life is already far too great - for example, why do presidential candidates have to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious figures in order to get elected

5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science classes - other than perhaps within pyschology

A better approach would be to avoid exposing children to religion until they understood what science already shows us - then they could decide whether they need a deity to fill the gaps

Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most elementary school children have already been pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and why are there no human fossils mixed up with them" - answers I've heard include "because they were too slow to get on the ark", which clearly something they've been told, not something they've postulated for themselves

I was recently in a fairfax county high school and spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis" taped in the center of a prominent classroom wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's equations with biblical phrases.

I thought that was disgraceful

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology

Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science classes - I said if a student brings it up, point them to the religion courses.

>
> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps

We don't live in China.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> > classes - other than perhaps within pyschology
>
> Note - I didn't say to teach religion in science
> classes - I said if a student brings it up, point
> them to the religion courses.


No need - point them at their church - it already has tax-exempt status


>
> >
> > A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> > children to religion until they understood what
> > science already shows us - then they could
> decide
> > whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> We don't live in China.

However, much as some of the posters would complain, we don't live in a theocracy either - although we do seem to back them wherever we can

You're whacked.

We don't live in anything close to a theocracy, and even if they made religion a required class in public school we would be nowhere near one.

Take places like Iran, etc - where religious figures lead the government. That is a theocracy. Please, tell me when we have ever had a priest running the country. Or why you believe we could have a priest that would be elected, or issue religious edicts that we all must follow blindly.

You need to teach religion - especially in high school - so that kids learn to understand the whys behind religion, and can have an intelligent conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a bit too young to try and have a seriously intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see, is that there are religions practiced on a regular basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY Christian religion classes, then you are not establishing a State religion. If the school has Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be included. I am not talking about RELIGION - Religious teachings. I am talking about religion origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion came to be established per the myths, and per what we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of religion go to a church or your worship site of choice. And not as a way to knock off what the religion teaches - more to give the kids a look "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment of religion at all. Again, folks can make much better decisions about life if they have a better understanding of the history, and how modern ideas impact and compare to a given religion.

Parents should take their kids to church if that is their choice. But schools also need to be cognizant of the place religion has in our society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're whacked.
>
> We don't live in anything close to a theocracy,

I never said that we were (in fact my words were "we don't live in a theocracy either") - however there are clearly people in the US who think we should be

My point is that religion has a dangerously disproportionate influence in government in this country and there are clearly elected officials who believe that this is a christian country and should ever remain so

The recent scandals over the role of evangelicals at US military training schools shows that aggressive religious recruitment is pervasive in this country


>
> Take places like Iran, etc - where religious
> figures lead the government. That is a theocracy.


Or Israel, the recipient of vast amounts of our tax dollars that they then spend on territorial expansion. For example, the situation in Gaza only arose because Israel is afraid of becoming a minority Jewish country

Now that's a theocracy on your tax dime


>
> You need to teach religion - especially in high
> school - so that kids learn to understand the whys
> behind religion, and can have an intelligent
> conversation about it. I agree, 5th graders are a
> bit too young to try and have a seriously
> intelligent discussion on it. The problem you see,
> is that there are religions practiced on a regular
> basis in the US - so, if you don't give ONLY
> Christian religion classes, then you are not
> establishing a State religion. If the school has
> Christian, Muslim, and belief systems like
> Hinduism and such, you allow for all people to be
> included. I am not talking about RELIGION -
> Religious teachings. I am talking about religion
> origins, backgrounds, how a particular religion
> came to be established per the myths, and per what
> we know factually. You know, TEACH the kids
> something. Yes, you want to get your daily dose of
> religion go to a church or your worship site of
> choice. And not as a way to knock off what the
> religion teaches - more to give the kids a look
> "behind the curtain" so to speak. Not a judgment
> of religion at all. Again, folks can make much
> better decisions about life if they have a better
> understanding of the history, and how modern ideas
> impact and compare to a given religion.


I disagree - kids get ample exposure to religion outside of school

You can't complain that kids should be exposed when they're small "because we don't live in China" and then demand that they should be re-indoctrinated later in high school

Religion should only be taught in the way we teach murder, cannibalism, schizophrenia, female circumcision and incest - as unfortunate characteristics of the human condition


>
> Parents should take their kids to church if that
> is their choice. But schools also need to be
> cognizant of the place religion has in our
> society, and not act as if it doesn't exist.

That's like giving equal time to the easter bunny, flatworlders and people who believe they've been kidnapped by aliens or should be able to marry horses


Religion is a left over social artifact from a time when we didn't understand how the world worked and had to be scared of shadows

Our schools should be doing nothing to propagate it further

Maybe you should move to France. This is not France. Nor is anything that I suggested "indoctrination". Read it again - I didn't say to teach religious theology and prepare them for seminary. I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and how they came about - then go into comparisons to other religions, etc.

No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions - the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks that are religious, and acting as if they are some kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief system. As PP suggested, comparative religion should most likely be a mandatory class to give folks an understanding of religions - probably two years of it. It would help when dealing with the overtly religious countries in the world - that way they might understand them, rather then just dismiss them as deluded.

As far as Israel goes, the issues there are much deeper than your flawed, shallow analysis of the situation. If that is your understanding of what is going on over there, that doesn't lend much credibility to the rest of your statements here.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> how they came about - then go into comparisons to
> other religions, etc.


The only way that could work is if it were during a history class that was focused on a period of history where certain events in the bible may coincide with known events. Otherwise, a comparative religion class would waste WAY too much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since religion is really just speculation, with little of no evidence to support it, it would be far better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at all.


> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.

LOL! You mean like Christians have been doing to non-believers for the last 2000 years? Awwwww, poor Christians. They can sure dish it out, but as soon as they get fired upon, they start crying about being repressed because they have no counter to the facts they argue against.


> As PP suggested, comparative religion
> should most likely be a mandatory class to give
> folks an understanding of religions - probably two
> years of it. It would help when dealing with the
> overtly religious countries in the world - that
> way they might understand them, rather then just
> dismiss them as deluded.


And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes" will be taught by non-biased and open-minded professors, right?
Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that day.

There would be a curriculum for this. The folks you are speaking of - most likely they are already happily employed by the local private religious schools (of various denominations) doing exactly what you think.

You know, maybe you should take a moment to think about what I stated. I am not talking about teaching religion. I am talking about teaching ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the origins of the religion, the history of the sects splitting off, and talking to the issues of things like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of thought - you don't think those course would be a good way to talk about the good and bad sides of religion, and also covering science in relation to religion. You think that is a bad idea?

History will cover some aspects of this from other angles. But for the most part history glosses over why things were done. What were the reasons behind slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in depth due to the fact that it starts talking about religion.

What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys and hows that religions came about. What they were trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs and figure out if they make sense to them or not moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents from immersing their kids in religion - but it certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more rational education of the issues involved.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 12:03AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?


YES! The pivotal decisions and actions throughout time, especially those that effect our current way of life should be included in social studies or history classes. They don't need a mandatory class dedicated to it.



> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done.

I agree with that, but I think that just needs to be corrected. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


> What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.


Well, I'm glad we agree that religion was a big reason for slavery.



> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time?

No, not a waste of time if taught in the context of real evidentiary history. But yes as a mandatory class.


> It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward.

There is no rational for religious beliefs once you begin to understand about cosmology, history, science and philosophy.


> You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion

Probably not, but it's worth a try, don't you think?

> but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.

+ 1 on the "issues involved"

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> you begin to understand about cosmology, history,
> science and philosophy.
>

absolutely - so start with them

start with the discoveries of the Hubble and Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit wimpy as an explanation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.stm

70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
...some containing upto a trillion stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

and god has time for a personal relationship with you?

That's even without thinking about the complex dynamics of a system containing ...10 to the power 80 atoms,
...operating at dramatically varying temperatures
...over 13.7 billion years
...and a current diameter of about 16 Billion light years

don't forget, every atom heavier than hydrogen has been through the middle of at least one star (that's the only way they get made - well if you ignore the elves chipping away at them in santa's grotto)

so lets really think about this...

a) if your a 6 thousand year-er then kindly explain the above...

b) if you think that god or gods are still behind all of this - god presses the button 16.7 Billion years ago, massive quantum mechanical ferment, star formation blah blah blah - all so he can chat to Registered Voter over breakfast one thursday?

I forgot to mention that in the middle of all of this god took time to bury fake dino bones to test the unwary - that old joker :)

and gave us a perfect DNA tree that clearly germinated with a single cell.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/322836.html

+1 for religion again

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> France.

I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but I'm having a hard time understanding your point about France. France is a country in which freedom of religion is recognized by law. It's also a majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find the place to be quite civilized.

> No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions -
> the main thing they get is people ridiculing folks
> that are religious, and acting as if they are some
> kind of nutjob because they have a certain belief
> system.

Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational people supposed to react to them?

NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > No, kids DON'T get "that" exposed to religions
> -
> > the main thing they get is people ridiculing
> folks
> > that are religious, and acting as if they are
> some
> > kind of nutjob because they have a certain
> belief
> > system.
>
> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?

If you have a nut-job belief system that runs completely counter to the evidence and you insist on foisting it on everyone else while expecting special treatment, then the price is opposition and ridicule

Pushing faith in opposition to evidence is going to get you justifiably grouped with the other faithers - some of whom are even nutjobbier

if you're going to Valhalla anyway it really shouldn't bother you

NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe you should move to France. This is not
> > France.
>
> I don't disagree with many of your arguments, but
> I'm having a hard time understanding your point
> about France. France is a country in which freedom
> of religion is recognized by law. It's also a
> majority Catholic country. Despite this, I find
> the place to be quite civilized.

France setup their government to be a secular government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on the Separation of Church and State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_State

Please show me that law in the US, or in any form. Sure, they are quite civilized - but they also do not allow the full freedom of expression (ie 1st Amendment) in particular where it comes to religion. Religion is strictly private in France, although you do have some State funded religious schools there - they just have very strict requirements on curriculum standards. So yeah, you want these things you folks are promoting, then learn French, and move to France. It appears they are right there with ya, and will satisfy your religious problems. Just don't ridicule politicians if you are newscasters or on the air personalities (or even a blogger), it is very possible you will go to jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Quote

...
As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months' imprisonment. Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the republic", on the other hand, include "insulting" anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors).
...

> Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> people supposed to react to them?

What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a good understanding of science, that does not mean you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a religious person. I don't practice any religion - although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just because as a human being we might have a hard time dealing with all the complexities of managing a billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is impossible for a larger consciousness to do so. But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is just my personal belief. My point being - you live in the US which was founded on religious tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in place in France, so that should tell you something. It's obvious your rational thinking didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality behind tolerance.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would limit themselves to one little planet in the cosmos to allow for the development of intelligent life on - but I am not really arguing for a "God" either.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2010 10:23AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NegativeDreamStealer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >

> France setup their government to be a secular
> government. France has a law - adopted 1905 - on
> the Separation of Church and State.
>

And that's a very sensible thing to do

We don't need to because the constitution already does it for us


> As part of “internal security” enactments passed
> in 2003, it an offense to insult the national flag
> or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro
> fine or up to six months' imprisonment.
> Restrictions on "offending the dignity of the
> republic", on the other hand, include "insulting"
> anyone who serves the public (potentially
> magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and
> even bus conductors).
> ...
>

So I think we'd all agree that offending bus conductors is going a tad far - but so is allowing open carry of sidearms in bars (another FXU favorite)

but we have to bear in mind why Europeans tend to have limits to acceptable free speech - especially two world wars and a holocaust

There's a reason why Germany has limits on neo-nazi activities

Do I agree with all of the tradeoffs they've made, no but its clear that they have made tradeoffs




>
> > Well, the beliefs are absurd. How are rational
> > people supposed to react to them?
>
> What makes you "rational"? Just because you have a
> good understanding of science, that does not mean
> you aren't a nut. Again, you mistake me for a
> religious person. I don't practice any religion -
> although I am probably a Deist of a sort. Just
> because as a human being we might have a hard time
> dealing with all the complexities of managing a
> billion trillion stars, doesn't mean it is
> impossible for a larger consciousness to do so.


That's not the point.

The point is that the physics and the maths of complex systems show you that it fundamentally can't be done.

You can't start with a universal atomic fireball and predict the outcomes at the level of a given species, a given planet or even a given galaxy

To model the outcomes of a quantum system, you need another of the same scale, running alongside - or a far larger or running exponentially faster

To envisage an exponentially larger parallel universe sat alongside, just so you can have a Pope to talk to on rainy tuesdays when they're not out massacring heretics is a really odd suggestion

And even designing that universe, you'd need an even bigger one... you get the picture


science goes the other way and gives you a set of simple building blocks that scale and explain the universe around you


> But, I don't have an answer to that one - that is
> just my personal belief. My point being - you live
> in the US which was founded on religious
> tolerance, and not France, which was reformed on
> religious secularism. The ideas you are expressing
> are practiced there. In the US, our Constitution
> doesn't allow for the kinds of restriction in
> place in France, so that should tell you
> something. It's obvious your rational thinking
> didn't give you a firm grasp of the morality
> behind tolerance.

Well firstly, I don't see much tolerance in most religions - I see centuries of extermination and domination, explosive bouts of hunt-the-heretic and a persistent 'crusader' mentality

Secondly, morality is a social artifact and as such is always up for discussion - the universe doesn't care about morality, its just an agreement we come to that has localized evolutionary advantages

Thirdly, I don't think any of the non-faithers were arguing against freedom of speech.

Rather I limit myself to protecting the ban on religion in schools in the same way we ban racism and knife fights - and opposing religion and its pernicious impacts through the expression of free speech

>
> EDIT: Oh yeah, I am also sure there are other
> forms of life out there. I doubt any "God" would
> limit themselves to one little planet in the
> cosmos to put intelligent life on - but I am not
> really arguing for a God either.

The arguments still hold regardless of however many forms of life you have - that's the deep folly of creationism and intelligent design

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The arguments still hold regardless of however
> many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> folly of creationism and intelligent design

So you would rather argue we developed as the dominant intelligence species through a series of cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are totally a random collection of protoplasm that just happened to finally evolve. In a universe full of suns, planets, etc - random universal "constants" finally allowed for the accident of "us" to happen.

Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over intelligent design? Just because you can't prove or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a Who?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.

Yup

But it would be a mistake to think of ourselves as any kind of summit of anything

There will almost certainly be multiple forms of life in multiple places at multiple times

we only think we're special because we only see ourselves

10^80 atoms over vast timescales and vastly varying conditions is a heck of a lot of experiments

My take on chemistry and biology is that once they kick off, and subject to inputs of energy e.g. sunlight you tend towards increasing complexity.

Once you've started down the line of chemistry all sorts of things start to happen - similarly once you have molecules that replicate and carry information

I'm pretty confident that just as we see life in all sorts of extreme corners of the earth, we'll find it in other places within the solar system as we explore it. The vast rest of the universe is almost certainly teeming with life - all going "isn't it amazing that the 8-eyed silicon god chose us"




>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?


Because, as explained above, that intelligent design is not a practical scenario - it just doesn't scale in the way that the scientific explanation does.

Not only that, you don't need it to explain everything that you see around you - science offers far simpler, scaleable mechanisms. Faithers just invent stuff to stop them being scared of the dark or because that's what there Mom's told them to keep them quiet in church

Religion just seems simpler because you don't ask the difficult questions - you put them down to ineffable elegance of the invisible guy and resort to faith,

Souls are a good example - can't find one, can't see one, can't measure one, can't see its effects - but I can't be bothered to understand neuroscience so I'll just assume that the bearded-one hid it behind my ears

finito benito,

Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have the right not to. It is solely your decision, your will, your responsibility. The same way I and millions of others have the right to believe or not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having the ability to think, hope, believe is human. Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like making people deny a part of their self, trying to erase a part of their being. If you don't want to believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't try to decide what's best for others.

Professor P,

Since Christianity is a belief system derived from the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God, and it can be easily determined if someone is "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't. So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have the right to judge a person making a mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't. Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.

I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at least the New Testament?

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.
>


But it is right to push back against the special role and influence that religion and its thoroughly discredited ideas have on society

It is right to question whether religious institutions should get tax breaks and special influence. The tools of fear and damnation that religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank or a civic group - religion gets a free pas

As we've discussed over the last pages - religion is not neutral in its effects on society

I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is forced on my children, it does distort the political process and it is used to justify some of the most egregious and destructive conflicts including our support for rogue regimes such as Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from that

I'm fully happy for people to believe what they want in the peace and quiet of their own homes - but once you start to force that into the public square, then you have to be able to justify it

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>
> Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to go
> to church or to adopt Christian faith? is anyone
> forcing you to listen to Christian radio stations
> or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You have
> the right not to. It is solely your decision, your
> will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> millions of others have the right to believe or
> not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views, and
> it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> making people deny a part of their self, trying to
> erase a part of their being. If you don't want to
> believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you shouldn't
> try to decide what's best for others.


I think you're missing the point. Though I can't speak for Benito, I will say that for me it religions political and social influences that disturb me. The fact that Texas may actually change public school textbooks to cross out and opine people and events that don't jive with their christian beliefs is one current example. The chances of the USA electing a non religious person for president is unthinkable right now.

No atheists give a shit if you want to worship God or any other mythical creature. Pray all you want, go to church and give and give them all your money. We DON't Care. Just don't fuck with our children, politics, schools and as long as churches pay taxes like everyone else, we won't bug you ever again (except to goof on you every now and then for being so silly).
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.
> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.
> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abc123 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > finito benito,
> >
> > Is anyone literally forcing you to believe in
> > something/someone/God? is anyone forcing you to
> go
> > to church or to adopt Christian faith? is
> anyone
> > forcing you to listen to Christian radio
> stations
> > or watch Christian Channels? I doubt it. You
> have
> > the right not to. It is solely your decision,
> your
> > will, your responsibility. The same way I and
> > millions of others have the right to believe or
> > not. It's ok to be exposed to religious views,
> and
> > it's ok to make up your mind about them. Having
> > the ability to think, hope, believe is human.
> > Trying to completely exclude faith, it's like
> > making people deny a part of their self, trying
> to
> > erase a part of their being. If you don't want
> to
> > believe in God/bible, it's fine. But you
> shouldn't
> > try to decide what's best for others.
> >
>
>
> But it is right to push back against the special
> role and influence that religion and its
> thoroughly discredited ideas have on society
>
> It is right to question whether religious
> institutions should get tax breaks and special
> influence. The tools of fear and damnation that
> religion uses over the weak and vulnerable are
> disgraceful and would be banned if used by a bank
> or a civic group - religion gets a free pas
>
> As we've discussed over the last pages - religion
> is not neutral in its effects on society
>
> I'm not forced to accept religion - but it is
> forced on my children, it does distort the
> political process and it is used to justify some
> of the most egregious and destructive conflicts
> including our support for rogue regimes such as
> Israel - and all the costs that have arisen from
> that
>
> I'm fully happy for people to believe what they
> want in the peace and quiet of their own homes -
> but once you start to force that into the public
> square, then you have to be able to justify it


France.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito,
>

> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?


yup - plus pliny, catullus, virgil, chaucer, Shakespeare, dickens, Marx, sagan, lewis, tolkein, dawkins, bronoswki, feynman and the sunday funnies


if you're looking for a good fireside book - try

A short history of nearly everything
Bill Bryson
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/
its on sale and a good read

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > abc123 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > finito benito,
> > >

> > but once you start to force that into the
> public
> > square, then you have to be able to justify it
>
>
> France.

at least you can get decent cheese and the wine's a reasonable price

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Quick breakdown:
>
> > On these points I don't think there's a lot of
> > difference between us.
>
> I'd have to disagree with this approach
>
> 1) Comparative religion is already taught in
> elementary schools - my 5th grader was working
> through compulsory units on jewish and other
> mythology (mandated by the state) see
> http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_
> docs/history_socialscience/index.shtml - no
> mention of the FSM though

Yes, I'm aware that religion is taught in schools.

> Frankly I was appalled that this was being taught
> before evolution was even mentioned.

I'm not entirely sure why this is bothersome.

> 2) Religion is already imposed as a de facto
> through the morning chant of the pledge of
> allegiance with its cold war era "we're not those
> godless ruskies" under god clause

That might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe theism, but not *religion*.

> 3) What's missing is not more religion in the
> schools but more and better science - part of the
> issue is that there are so few scientists teaching
> in schools,and so few students taking hard
> science. The real triumph of the scientific
> revolution is when you see it in the round - when
> you see how the issues of scale and complexity
> impact on the world you see around you from
> cosmology to quantum science, how similar and how
> different species are and why, how ecosystems
> adapt, how your brain and mind work. Teaching that
> in a way that kids get a sense of the whole early
> is hard - which is why the pernicious, pervasive
> drip drip drip of 'under god' and encouraging
> 'faith based organizations' is so destructive

I agree and somewhat disagree with you here. Science teaching throughout the US is pretty bad. That said, I think that comparative religion is very important as well. Perhaps it's getting it's fair shake now. I'm not sure, but religion is a LARGE part of people's lives and children should have a passing familiarity with religion.

> 4) Religion's pervasive and corrosive grip on
> American public life is already far too great -
> for example, why do presidential candidates have
> to kowtow to some of the sleaziest of religious
> figures in order to get elected

I agree with this.

> 5) Religion has no place whatsoever in science
> classes - other than perhaps within pyschology

I agree in the general curriculum aspect - but if a student asks a question about Noah's ark, I think the science teacher is well within their bounds to explain how such an event as a world wide flood is scientifically impossible.

> A better approach would be to avoid exposing
> children to religion until they understood what
> science already shows us - then they could decide
> whether they need a deity to fill the gaps
>
> Its clear that by the age of 7 or 8, most
> elementary school children have already been
> pre-conditioned to assume that there is a god. Its
> always fun to ask 7 year olds who bring up
> religion "so what happened to the dinosaurs and
> why are there no human fossils mixed up with them"
> - answers I've heard include "because they were
> too slow to get on the ark", which clearly
> something they've been told, not something they've
> postulated for themselves

Perhaps delaying it would be helpful - I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know.

> I was recently in a fairfax county high school and
> spotted a poster "the mathematics of genesis"
> taped in the center of a prominent classroom
> wipeboard - conflating Schrodinger and Einstein's
> equations with biblical phrases.
>
> I thought that was disgraceful

Yes, that is.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I said teach them ABOUT religion(s) and
> > how they came about - then go into comparisons
> to
> > other religions, etc.
>
>
> The only way that could work is if it were during
> a history class that was focused on a period of
> history where certain events in the bible may
> coincide with known events. Otherwise, a
> comparative religion class would waste WAY too
> much time and prove nothing to anyone. Since
> religion is really just speculation, with little
> of no evidence to support it, it would be far
> better suited to a non-mandatory class or not at
> all.

Why would such a class even attempt to prove anything? I envision such a course similar to one I took in highschool - you get a general breakdown of various religions. Kind of like a history course, as you mentioned.


> And I'm sure these 2 years of "mandatory classes"
> will be taught by non-biased and open-minded
> professors, right?
> Bullshit! There are crazy Creationists and insane
> Islamic "scholars" chomping at the bit for that
> day.

Dude, you have crazy creationists shoving their ridiculousness into all sorts of places where it doesn't belong. You will always have bad teachers teaching bad stuff.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There would be a curriculum for this. The folks
> you are speaking of - most likely they are already
> happily employed by the local private religious
> schools (of various denominations) doing exactly
> what you think.
>
> You know, maybe you should take a moment to think
> about what I stated. I am not talking about
> teaching religion. I am talking about teaching
> ABOUT religion. Sure, a class on Christianity
> would cover Catholics, protestants, baptists,
> mormons, etc. You think a class that went into the
> origins of the religion, the history of the sects
> splitting off, and talking to the issues of things
> like the crusades, the advent of the Vatican and
> such, etc. Or with Islam - the various muslim
> sects, the reasons behind the splits and such, or
> with Hinduism, or Buddhism with the same kinds of
> thought - you don't think those course would be a
> good way to talk about the good and bad sides of
> religion, and also covering science in relation to
> religion. You think that is a bad idea?

Actually, when I took a comparative religion course (decade + ago), the startling thing was the *OTHER* religions (zoroastrianism, toaism, shintoism, African religions whose name I can't even remember). The course was a 'history' in that it started out with ancient religions (such as Egyptian and others) and worked it's way to modern beliefs.

> History will cover some aspects of this from other
> angles. But for the most part history glosses over
> why things were done. What were the reasons behind
> slavery? Not just in the US, but in the world, and
> then later how it was applied in Africa, Europe
> and the Americas? A lot of that has roots in
> religions and beliefs - but is rarely covered in
> depth due to the fact that it starts talking about
> religion.

I agree with this - history leaves out a lot of 'whys' and religion, unfortunately, can be used to fill in some of those whys (such as the deification of the emperor of Japan during WWII).

> What I see is a way to educate kids on the whys
> and hows that religions came about. What they were
> trying to accomplish. Much of the good and bad
> things that have resulted from them, etc. A waste
> of time? Doubtful. It is more likely to give the
> kids a way to rationalize their religious beliefs
> and figure out if they make sense to them or not
> moving forward. You aren't going to stop parents
> from immersing their kids in religion - but it
> certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a more
> rational education of the issues involved.

To be honest, I would think the fundies would have a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing their children to 'satanic religions'....

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > There is no rational for religious beliefs once
> > you begin to understand about cosmology,
> history,
> > science and philosophy.
> >
>
> absolutely - so start with them
>
> start with the discoveries of the Hubble and
> Planck satellite e.g. on continuous star and
> planet foundation - after that genesis looks a bit
> wimpy as an explanation
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8571418.
> stm
>
> 70 sextillion stars (17 followed by 22 zeros)
> ...spread amongst 170 billion galaxies
> ...some containing upto a trillion stars
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
>
> and god has time for a personal relationship with
> you?

This reminds me of the Bertrand Russell story of the theologian who dies and goes to heaven. He meets an alien in the library who has no idea what 'humans' are and the theologian becomes shocked at just how insignificant humanity is. Good story.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> finito benito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The arguments still hold regardless of however
> > many forms of life you have - that's the deep
> > folly of creationism and intelligent design
>
> So you would rather argue we developed as the
> dominant intelligence species through a series of
> cosmic accidents and mutations, and that we are
> totally a random collection of protoplasm that
> just happened to finally evolve. In a universe
> full of suns, planets, etc - random universal
> "constants" finally allowed for the accident of
> "us" to happen.
>
> Why should that "theory" hold total dominance over
> intelligent design? Just because you can't prove
> or determine a higher intelligence? Horton Hear a
> Who?

This is a strawman - evolution is not random. Further, you seem to be using the term 'theory' in an equivocal way. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It does not belong in the market place of ideas in science because it's not a scientific theory.

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor P,
>
> Since Christianity is a belief system derived from
> the life and teachings of Jesus/God, it is enough
> to compare one's life/actions to the guidelines
> set out in the New Testament/Bible by Jesus/God,
> and it can be easily determined if someone is
> "Christian"- by name or Christian by real. Does
> being Christian make you perfect? No, it doesn't.

You don't get it. You seem to think that there is some objective POV that can be used to determine this. The point I have been making is that those you rail against as being non christian would rail against you equally for not being a christian. They would ALSO have biblical support.

> So, Christians can make mistakes too. Do I have
> the right to judge a person making a
> mistake/failing to live by the word? No, I don't.

Yet you believe you have the right to determine who is or is not a Christian?

> Why not? Because, the Bible teaches me not to, and
> because tomorrow I might commit the same mistake.
>
>
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?


I've read the entire bible, cover to cover, twice and I've read portions several times throughout my life.

Have you?

finito benito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A short history of nearly everything
> Bill Bryson
> http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everyth
> ing/dp/076790818X/
> its on sale and a good read


+1

The audio version is also really good.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, I would think the fundies would have
> a bigger problem with this, since you are exposing
> their children to 'satanic religions'....

Yeah, I agree. But at least it gives us a way to start getting past calling everyone who has a belief in religion a nutcase. People seem to have forgotten what tolerance is. Fundamentalists are way beyond that already, so you could only hope to draw some of them in.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

abc123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious: has any of you read the Bible or at
> least the New Testament?

No, I get all my biblical information from Mel Brooks.

That's how I know there had been 15 commandments until Moses accidentally dropped a tablet. I'm pretty sure that was the one with "Thou shalt not rape," "Thou shalt not enslave," and "Thou shalt not abuse children" on it.

I know that those who passionately attack Lon Solomon, McLean Bible Church...and those that teach things that are not popular with modern society will come back with all kinds of things that aren't favorable to the sentiments of my post. I'm ok with that.

I have looked at these threads for quite some time (a little over 2 years now)...and each time I do...I feel the same...sad and hurt. I guess today, it was a little harder than the others. Not sure why, but I feel that my thoughts should be heard today.

It is so very sad that so many people have been so hurt somewhere along life's path that they cannot believe that there can be goodness, generosity, love and passion and true commitment to God in men any more.
How will anyone ever know if someone is 'the real deal'? What should 'the real deal 'look' like? What should it 'feel' like? What should it 'taste' like? What should it 'smell' like? What should it 'sound' like?

Is it human nature to envy if we have the same things as others? Or, do we envy when we don't? The bible speaks of many, many men who were blessed with incredible financial wealth. It is also recorded that men of great wealth lost in great measure. I will take a wild guess and bet everything I own, that if what Lon Solomon has in assets was compared to those in the bible I have referenced, he would be considered a very, very, very poor man. It is a matter of perspective.

I would be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that there haven't been men and women in the ministry who have given into greed and other sin? I would also be an 'idiot and/or moron' to say that CHRISTIANS ARE IMMUNE!!!
Human nature loves a 'great story'...and for some strange reason, when Christian leaders fail, it becomes a great story for those who fight against the ideals of 'faith, trust and belief in God' or pure goodness. It is highly publicized when someone in leadership falls. It is sad...and so many followers lose their faith, never to have it again. Failure in such leadership comes at a great cost. But of course, that is the goal of the devil.

Today more than ever, churches and their leadership know just how serious accountability is in so many areas of ministry. Because of this, much change has occurred throughout the church and the leadership to protect leaders and followers alike, from those very situations. Is it fool-proof? Absolutely not. But it has been recognized and addressed...and will continue to be monitored as time passes.

Accountability...yes, even Lon Solomon has accountability to the other leaders of the church. Obviously there are many who do not believe this, but there are meetings that cover finances that are opened to the public...not only members, but non-members.

Regarding Lon Solomon's family and his daughter's handicap... Who would wish that on any individual or family? I give those writing on this thread the benefit of the doubt...that they wouldn't. You may be very compassionate people. But there is a question I have for those that do not support Lon Solomon's leadership...even the ones that are compassionate towards others. How many people can look at such handicaps...or any others for that matter, as a blessing? Those who have a strong faith and trust in God may. Some followers may not because it challenges their faith so much that they turn against everything they have believed all of their lives. That is a very sad day...when someone gives up. But God doesn't. He is faithful...and will be there the moment they desire to 'come back'.

Do all of the readers of this thread know how Lon Solomon feels about his daughter's struggles and how it impacted his own faith? Ask him...so you know and understand what motivates him. Are readers of this thread aware of the blessing that Access Ministries has been to so many families? Jill's House...and how that is going to bless the community's families and those beautiful children?

What about all of the other wonderful ministries supported by McLean Bible Church? How many lives are changed for good...forever? Is it possible that there may be a 'hint of goodness' in this man that so many speak out against?

Who knows 'the man' Lon Solomon on an intimate friendship level? Do readers of this thread? I have listened to him teach passionately for almost 2 years. I definitely do not know him on a personal level. I don't feel that I need to. Reason being is that he answers to God...not me...or anyone else...plain and simple. If he is doing something wrong, God will reveal it in His own way...and in His own timing. If he isn't a 'phoney', people will still try to prove he is. That is just the way things are sometimes.

I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man. That does not make me or anyone else who does...idiots and/or morons.

Why isn't the idea of Lon Solomon (or any other influential leader) having an honest love for God a 'potential thought' for so many of the people who have attacked this pastor on this thread? Haven't or couldn't any in Christian leadership escape the snares that others haven't in the past? I sure hope so. Isn't it even worth it to have hope that we can believe in God's goodness that is possible in men...to come to full fruition...in anyone's life? Have we all lost all hope and ability to have such faith? Why is it that those who do have such faith are labeled 'idiots or morons'? I don't think I am a moron or idiot. Nor do I consider those who say unfavorable things idiots or morons.

How can anyone judge anothers' heart or motives? Our hearts are wicked because of sin. Lon Solomon is steadfast in what he teaches, popular or not, to those who listen. Is it supposed to 'feel good' when we face some 'ugly truths' about ourselves? Of course not. It is up to the listener to be honest with themselves and search their hearts and truly seek out what God's word says...to know what change is necessary. Not only know...but to do what it is for good. I know on a personal level that some of the things he teaches about aren't easy for me to hear. Who wants to hear that if they want to serve God as God himself wants us to, that we need to make changes and/or give worldly pleasure up? It is never comfortable, but the rewards are guaranteed. I am reminded every day I wake up...it isn't always easy, but by God's grace...we can do it.

I tried to shorten this...but I just couldn't. Please readers, ask yourself some of the questions I have posed. Be honest with yourselves. Is it Lon Solomon that you are upset with...or possibly something or someone else. Soul search...and ask God to speak to you. He will, but you have to be willing to listen...even if it is uncomfortable.

God bless you all...from one who can only thank God for his continued and unmerited grace and mercy.

Hopeful one,
I don't think the majority of non believers think of you as a moron or idiot, unless of course you say something moronic or idiotic.

As for myself, a non believer, when I hear someone say things like "I trust God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit...not man." I can't help but feel they are delusional. The term delusional doesn't necessarily mean you're an idiot, it just means you've been duped, possibly since you were very young.

What do you trust God to do? More importantly, what do you trust the leadership of the Holy Spirit to do?
Do you lack trust in yourself or your friends?
Why do you trust in a being that has absolutely no evidence to back his story up and an overwhelming amount of evidence against it? Please don't use the "faith" answer as this will only make you seem more delusional and irrational.

How many prayers has God answered sufficiently for you and how many has he not answered at all?

A letter from McLean Bible (their head elder) in response to the Picketing going on outside the church. I'm (currently) a member and I can tell you the financial truth of this church is causing me renounce my membership. There is no external accountability at Mclean Bible Church or Jill's House, let alone HLP Tours (Lon's tour business or partnership).

Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts / Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the accusations, however that cannot be addressed as this truth would cause major descension in the giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep hiding the truth because the day it's found out is the day it falls apart. What would you do?

The disheartening piece of this is the fact the Church Management does not seem to realize this lack of trust and accountability feeling is growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit providing the financial disclosure as used to be done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at a time, but that won't last forever.


____________________________________


By now, many of you have seen the men with the sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out there. To address these questions, please read the following short explanation.

The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal disagreement with MBC. He believes that our position on the nation of Israel, the return of Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong. He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our position on all these issues and to discipline Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful statements in his sermons.

Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over time, remove the present board from authority and to supplant it with a committee of MBC congregation members (including himself). This committee would then force change to MBC's doctrinal position and would effectively run church affairs.

Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be made a matter of public record.

Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have met with this man; and, in addition, I have interacted with him via email and one-on-one conversation. We told him that we will not acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend another church that more closely aligns with his doctrinal position and to be happy serving the Lord there.

We also reviewed with him our position and process for salary administration and oversight. As a part of that, we explained that it has been our practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it cannot help but be a divisive issue within our church family.

We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid, volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the salaries of our staff with careful attention to doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's money. Even though we do not reveal staff salaries, I want you to know that the figure this man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally incorrect. You also need to know that even though Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not participate in any deliberations when his salary is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any salaries for other church staff members. Overseeing the church compensation program is an Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of this.

We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage and embarrass the work of God by doing things like he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in a way that protects the reputation of God's work in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do the same things at another evangelical Bible church in the area next after he achieves his goals at MBC.

Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public property, he is within his rights to be there. We ask you to pray for him and his associates out there.

If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 301-299-2748.

Thank you for your kindness in reading my email. Please join me and the Elders in praying that God will continue to protect and use MBC in a great way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack on him, and that God will give him encouragement to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with his characteristic vigor and godly passion.

Serving Christ together,

Larry Cooper
Chairman, MBC board of Elders

Soon2BXmember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>

Goodness gracious - looks like I need a change in careers!!!

If you're going to fleece a flock, you might as well do it properly I suppose

Pah-leeze! do you all believe everything you hear and read? My sister lived in Lon's neigborhood and sold her home for $364K about 6 years ago... So What?

I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth his wages and Lon probably puts more hours into his work than we'd imagine. He has always done this, even when he was a young pastor on a small church budget. He did not start out earning a lot of money, nor did he ever imagine falling into the place he is now at MBC. I doubt it's easy to be Lon... to live with the pain of a little girl that struggles so much; to hear words like this web page and still have the joy to continue on in his work. It would be much simpler to retire and write books than to bear up under the false accusations and comments people make on pages like this.

Why do you all take the time to complain? You sound like you are jealous of Lon. Jealous of things that are not even true. Do you not have anything more productive to do with your time? If you don't like MBC, don't attend.

However, if you want to make a positive difference in this world, like Mr. Obama suggests we do, get involved and make a positive difference in the DC area,

Please don't respond with objections to the the things we do, unless you are able to be specific about what is wrong with the following:

MBC feeds THOUSANDS of families at Thanksgiving; provides Christmas toys for children who have incarcerated parents; takes care of disabled children so their parent can have a break for a few hours; provides free clothing and food to people who are unable to provide for themselves; sends gifts & letters to soldiers; provides help to women who are pregnant; has a ministry for individuals with disabilities and their families, We help people find employment thru Career Network, We provide Counseling, Divorce Recovery and Financial Help.
We help people who are grieving, We are building a facility for children who are disabled (Google Jill's House) - tell me what is wrong with that? We train people for Medical Emergency Response; we care about people and will even allow you into the church to check it out for yourself.

We partner with a DC inner city groups to help kids; check out both http://www.thehousedc.org/ and http://daybreakkids.org/

This is only a partial list of how McLean Bible church reaches out to help people. They are not self serving, but sacrificial in their time and giving. If we want to give to the church, SO WHAT? This is what the church SHOULD do rather that rely on the government to provide for the needs of the people.

Maybe you should stop worrying about all we do or don't do and visit the church for yourself. A big church is not for everyone, but we are able to do significant work when united in our hearts to serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too. I hope you are able to understand that before you die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose, but you do.

Not a sermon, just some thoughts.

KGD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pah-leeze! do you all believe everything you hear
> and read? My sister lived in Lon's neigborhood
> and sold her home for $364K about 6 years ago...
> So What?
>
> I don't know if Lon does have a boat but So What
> if he does? Lon does not have a plane, but he may
> have a jacuzzi. I do know that a worker is worth
> his wages

>united in our hearts to
> serve a loving God. Oh, yeah, God loves you, too.
> I hope you are able to understand that before you
> die. What if you're wrong? If I'm wrong I have
> nothing to lose, but you do.
>
> Not a sermon, just some thoughts.



Dude - no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms

If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead

I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs, god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had

BUT...

don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children

You are not a member our our church any longer and sadly your weak doctrin will prove itself. I am sad for you Francise knowing you through the singles ministry! Sad to know you heard the truth, yet just like Judas Iscariot, God knew you would not turn your heart to Him being no less than evil toward Him... We love you brother, why would you set yourself against God? For MBC is HIS and you have placed yourself against the HOLY God of all! Only one filled with the spirit of evil would do such a foolish thing and so I pray in sorrow for your sole... FURTHERMORE,the financial statements you speak of you do in the blindness of the evil one himself! Your focus on an idol (money) leading a church that has led more soles to the Kingdom of God in our area is interesting as well as sad to note... satan is scared of us... and you have been chosen to lead his way and make ready our country for the coming of our LORD! For we know, this all must happen... at least those of us who have studied the word of God! Lord have mercy on your sole Francise!

Luke 16:22-229 (New International Version)
22)"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23) In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24) So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 25) "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26) And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27) "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28) for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 29)"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets;let them listen to them.' 30)'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

-------------------------------------------------------
> A letter from McLean Bible (their head elder) in
> response to the Picketing going on outside the
> church. I'm (currently) a member and I can tell
> you the financial truth of this church is causing
> me renounce my membership. There is no external
> accountability at Mclean Bible Church or Jill's
> House, let alone HLP Tours (Lon's tour business or
> partnership).
>
> Take a look at their Housing Allowances, their
> Salaries and the Solomon's Expense Accounts /
> Credit Cards. If the claims of the picketers are
> errant, why doesn't he (Lon) simply show his last
> 5 year W2s? Such openness would absolve the
> accusations, however that cannot be addressed as
> this truth would cause major descension in the
> giving and cause unrest in the staff. So, keep
> hiding the truth because the day it's found out is
> the day it falls apart. What would you do?
>
> The disheartening piece of this is the fact the
> Church Management does not seem to realize this
> lack of trust and accountability feeling is
> growing inside the congregation. Too bad they quit
> providing the financial disclosure as used to be
> done. They keep trying to stifle it one person at
> a time, but that won't last forever.
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
> By now, many of you have seen the men with the
> sign boards outside the Tysons campus on Rt. 7 on
> Sundays. Some have asked what is going on out
> there. To address these questions, please read the
> following short explanation.
>
> The leader of this group has a deep doctrinal
> disagreement with MBC. He believes that our
> position on the nation of Israel, the return of
> Christ, and many other doctrinal issues is wrong.
> He has accused Lon of teaching heresy and the MBC
> Elders of supporting heresy in allowing Lon to
> teach as he does. He wants MBC to renounce our
> position on all these issues and to discipline
> Lon. He accuses Lon of other supposedly sinful
> statements in his sermons.
>
> Because of the Elder Board's support for Lon's
> supposed heresy, he wants to neutralize and, over
> time, remove the present board from authority and
> to supplant it with a committee of MBC
> congregation members (including himself). This
> committee would then force change to MBC's
> doctrinal position and would effectively run
> church affairs.
>
> Last, he wants all of the MBC staff salaries to be
> made a matter of public record.
>
> Tom McMahon (our Elder Vice Chairman) and I have
> met with this man; and, in addition, I have
> interacted with him via email and one-on-one
> conversation. We told him that we will not
> acquiesce to any of his demands. We have tried to
> appeal to him as a brother in the Lord to attend
> another church that more closely aligns with his
> doctrinal position and to be happy serving the
> Lord there.
>
> We also reviewed with him our position and process
> for salary administration and oversight. As a part
> of that, we explained that it has been our
> practice for 30 years not to reveal staff salaries
> for two reasons: (1) we feel it is a disrespectful
> invasion of our staff's privacy for everyone to
> know their salaries, and (2) we believe that it
> cannot help but be a divisive issue within our
> church family.
>
> We are commanded in the Scripture (Eph 4:3) to
> "guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
> peace" in the church. All eight of our non-paid,
> volunteer Elders oversee and decide on the
> salaries of our staff with careful attention to
> doing what is fair for our staff and, at the same
> time, being responsible stewards of the Lord's
> money. Even though we do not reveal staff
> salaries, I want you to know that the figure this
> man's sign suggests for our senior pastor's salary
> ($750,000) is outrageously high and totally
> incorrect. You also need to know that even though
> Lon is an Elder, he is not present and does not
> participate in any deliberations when his salary
> is discussed by the Board, nor does he vote on any
> salaries for other church staff members.
> Overseeing the church compensation program is an
> Elder responsibility, and Lon is not a part of
> this.
>
> We have asked this man repeatedly not to damage
> and embarrass the work of God by doing things like
> he is doing on Rt. 7 on Sundays. But he has firmly
> rebuffed all our attempts to try to address this
> matter decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and in
> a way that protects the reputation of God's work
> in Washington, DC. In fact, he told us that he has
> no intention of stopping and will "ratchet up" his
> efforts. He mentioned that he might move on to do
> the same things at another evangelical Bible
> church in the area next after he achieves his
> goals at MBC.
>
> Since he conducts his Rt. 7 activities on public
> property, he is within his rights to be there. We
> ask you to pray for him and his associates out
> there.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to
> give me a call at 301-299-2748.
>
> Thank you for your kindness in reading my email.
> Please join me and the Elders in praying that God
> will continue to protect and use MBC in a great
> way here in Washington for His glory. Also, please
> pray for Lon, that God will keep his eyes focused
> on the Lord in spite of this vituperative attack
> on him, and that God will give him encouragement
> to keep preaching the Word and leading MBC with
> his characteristic vigor and godly passion.
>
> Serving Christ together,
>
> Larry Cooper
> Chairman, MBC board of Elders

MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
... satan is scared of us... and you
> have been chosen to lead his way and make ready
> our country for the coming of our LORD! For we
> know, this all must happen... at least those of us
> who have studied the word of God! Lord have mercy
> on your sole Francise!
>

Most excellent - an apocalyptic cult on out doorstop - God and Satan's chosen rolling their sleeves up for a fight - that must break some anti gang legislation

I can't help but think that bringing on the apocalypse. or even advocating for it, is a contravention of the Patriot Act

Time for the FBI to send a SWAT team round for all members and former members

Given that the Catholic church seems to be fighting a rear-guard action for its institutionalized child abuse at the same time, we may be on a roll

It's funny how most atheists and non believers hope for mankind to continue evolving ,prospering and building towards a more perfect future and to explore the vast unknown.

Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort of apocalypse to happen and end everything.

Actually I am not a religious person as most who are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are not.

It is not about religion, it is about a relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has religion and I am pretty certain there will be many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is the fruit of their religious faith.

And you are correct that we look to the time when all this suffering will be no more for those of us who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not of it.

MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.


Ahhh - the quiet sound of self destruction, the counting of angels on pin-heads, the smell of burning compounds, the taste of freshly made Kool-Aid and the cries of "I'm more X than those Y's who only claim they're X"

You can't beat a cult vs cult smackdown - all the rage in the middle ages and sorely missed - especially the regular Millenarian vs Papacy grudge match (normally my bet would be on Rome, always a strong player on the long courses, but with the abuse cover-up thing going on who can tell)

I feel a Solar Temple moment coming on

Perhaps those who don't think they're of this world should not be able to vote or hold property in it - not a sermon, just some thoughts (tm)

Time to call the ATF

No burning compounds, just the burning desire of our hearts as we wait upon the Lord... No need for kool-aid, for we have the living water and will never thurst again...I don't claim to be anything but a simple servant, a bond slave to the Lord God Almighty.

There is no grudge match with Rome, their own foolish doctrine will bring the church under judgement.

As for the rights of those of us not of this world any longer having been adopted into God's family, we already own ALL the real property through our inheritance from our Father and King...

Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of eternity?

MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No burning compounds, just the burning desire of
> our hearts as we wait upon the Lord... No need for
> kool-aid, for we have the living water and will
> never thurst again...I don't claim to be anything
> but a simple servant, a bond slave to the Lord God
> Almighty.
>
> There is no grudge match with Rome, their own
> foolish doctrine will bring the church under
> judgement.
>
> As for the rights of those of us not of this world
> any longer having been adopted into God's family,
> we already own ALL the real property through our
> inheritance from our Father and King...
>
> Tell me fb... You seem to be so worldly and
> clever, who do you say Jesus is? And what of
> eternity?


I'm calling BS on MBC Supporter. His/her ramblings are just too insane to be real.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how most atheists and non believers
> hope for mankind to continue evolving ,prospering
> and building towards a more perfect future and to
> explore the vast unknown.
>
> Yet most religious people cant wait for some sort
> of apocalypse to happen and end everything.


As an agnostic, or really more of a spinozist, i have to disagree. I think we had our chance with this planet, and this life, and we fucked it big time. We were given "eden" and we go to war over pieces of land and minor differences in our beliefs. We are fucking animals who through some crazy twist in evolution came to where we are now. And we ruined it. I welcome an apocolypse, because even with best intentions, we still cant get anything right.

Say Finito amigo -

what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you and others. There is too much evidence, too many miracles in my own life to deny His existence.

You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans and priests in the living luxury that you so clearly think they need, then its your money, go ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to eventually live on 10 percent of my income and give 90% away.

How do you make this statement?
"I love this wealth through religion kick - its worked for messiahs,
god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics for thousands of years
- its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme for the afterlife
and no-one comes back to point out that they've been had"

Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to help others... or do you think the government should dictate where I give my money... is it better that they steal my money and waste it on their unproductive "programs".

Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks, don't expect special planning privileges, don't expect discredited religions to special rights and privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting the minds of children" The Government is a fraud and stealing our money, friend. They are distorting the minds of our children by helping them get pregnant and then abortion and then not disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.

You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money concerns you have. you did not respond to the good works MBC does for the benefit of others. How is that bad?

How have you contributed to the well being of a hungry child or needy family lately? How often have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is hurting and in need? How often have you provided a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is it you do to contribute something positive to our society?

People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are unselfishly giving of their time to help others. What's up with that? WHY would busy people give up their "spare" time to help others? Because it is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c they love other people. They have the gift of mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are unable to understand.

What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you think we waste our time and money but we are able to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or purposeful? Or do you just like to play the devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your life... waste it if you like, but deep in your heart you have a lonely, empty longing for something more.

Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but there will be a day when you meet your maker. You are not pond scum, something formed from goo... you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and you have been deceived. I pity you.

KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.

You speak of evidence and fact, when in fact it is a belief, I can respect your convictions, but please dont report them as facts.

If we are wrong we may go to hell or whatever, but the same goes for you and many other christians who follow the bible, imperfectly. Those who pick and choose what they want to believe, those who follow what is convinient. These people also commit cardinal sins which will land you in hell. Ever wack off? hell. Ever lie to your parents? Hell. etc... And i never understood the "im just playing the odds" approach to faith.

>
> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.

thats good for you, i personally dont care how much money lon makes, but if i was following a man speaking the word of god, i would like him to practice what he preached.

>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"

its an easy statement to make. For thousands of years governments and leaders (political and religious) have been using religion to grow their bank roll and to come to power.

>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".

Well i would closely compair any church to the government, they both do good and their true intent is to better their people, but they both become large and bloated feeding more money and power into themselves, adding to their salaries and their corruption. Which can be seen in the catholic church, which has ( or maybe had at this point) billions of dollars and power over much of the world.

>
> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>
> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?

A true statement, nothing is black and white, nothing is true evil or true good, MBC has done a great share of good, while im sure they do have negative qualities as well.
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?

I dont understand why or how it became that religion has a monopoly on morality. Some of the best human beings i know affiliate with no religion. They make decisions based on what they know is the right choice. The key term being choice. Because if the only reason you are doing good is to avoid punishment, then in reality, is that a moral decision?

>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.

Do you think that people that volunteer in soup kitchens, or help the less fortunate are exclusively christian? Again, i dont know where religion got this monopoly on righteousness. And you say they do it for no reason but to do good. When in reality they think it will help get them into heaven. The true test would be to do that same good with no alterior motive.

>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.

Just as you have the right to tell me all about your faith and beliefs, we have that same right to tell you our true feelings.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.

theres that famous christian spirit!

KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"? What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh? But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.
>


Okay - so here's an opportunity. If you have a single event that has no non-supernatural explanation - take your documentation and contact

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

James is a nice guy and very straightforward. If you have a good case, you'll get your million dollars and can give it to Lon


let us know how you get on

> You said "If you want to keep any of your shamans
> and priests in the living luxury that you so
> clearly think they need, then its your money, go
> ahead." The Word of God spoken thru the ministers
> at my church has given me hope and purpose. It's
> worth every penny,... in fact, I'd like to
> eventually live on 10 percent of my income and
> give 90% away.
>
> How do you make this statement?
> "I love this wealth through religion kick - its
> worked for messiahs,
> god-emperors, living-gods, popes and fanatics
> for thousands of years
> - its the best scam out there, its a ponzi-scheme
> for the afterlife
> and no-one comes back to point out that they've
> been had"
>
> Lon, whatever he makes, is underpaid. I can't take
> my money with me, but I can lay my treasure in
> heavenly things (ministry and purposeful things to
> help others... or do you think the government
> should dictate where I give my money... is it
> better that they steal my money and waste it on
> their unproductive "programs".
>

If you think that you can live without government then try living somewhere where there is none and see how your cult survives

The past history of groups that have tried this is quite instructive.

If you live in a civil society then you have to play and pay by its rules.

I don't remember seeing the MBC fire-trucks or the MBC medicare and medicaid programs or the MBC coast guard or the MBC medical schools or the MBC road building


> Finally, you say "BUT...don't expect tax breaks,
> don't expect special planning privileges, don't
> expect discredited religions to special rights and
> privileges in society, don't expect a free pass by
> claiming 'faith' over evidence and stop distorting
> the minds of children" The Government is a fraud
> and stealing our money, friend. They are
> distorting the minds of our children by helping
> them get pregnant and then abortion and then not
> disclosing the emotional pain of abortion. My
> abortion was "justified" because I was raped. It
> was the worst mistake I ever made. Ah, i digress.
>
>

No western government is helping kids get pregnant - certainly not ours.

A simple way of thinking about this is to compare the birth rates and infant mortality rates in societies dominated by religion and those with secular governments.

Take the Catholic church as an example - intent on preventing millions of poor women worldwide having access to birth control with the result that they all die poor and many die very young and in squalor.

Just look at the typical age of first childbirth in western nations with governments and those in developing nations where religion and superstition reign

I'm sorry if your were raped, and I'm sorry if you regret your abortion - but that doesn't give you the right to take that choice away from other women



> You, my friend, stayed focused on the MBC money
> concerns you have. you did not respond to the
> good works MBC does for the benefit of others.
> How is that bad?
>
> How have you contributed to the well being of a
> hungry child or needy family lately? How often
> have you fed or clothed or helped someone who is
> hurting and in need? How often have you provided
> a room in your home to someone in trouble? What is
> it you do to contribute something positive to our
> society?
>
> People at MBC who are in volunteer ministry are
> unselfishly giving of their time to help others.
> What's up with that? WHY would busy people give
> up their "spare" time to help others? Because it
> is good, and just, and fair, and right. Not
> because they receive pay or accolades, but b/c
> they love other people. They have the gift of
> mercy and compassion. What a tragedy that you are
> unable to understand.

hang on a second - if government has programs to help, educate and protect, then they're "unproductive" programs

but if your cult does it, its your ticket to invisible cloud land?



>
> What do you do with your spare time? Maybe you
> think we waste our time and money but we are able
> to give up what we cannot lose. How do you prefer
> to waste your time? is it better? selfish? or
> purposeful? Or do you just like to play the
> devil's advocate and harass believers? It's your
> life... waste it if you like, but deep in your
> heart you have a lonely, empty longing for
> something more.
>
> Moreover Fini, believers who read this page are
> praying for you. I'm sure you don't care now, but
> there will be a day when you meet your maker. You
> are not pond scum, something formed from goo...
> you were created by a thoughtful, loving God and
> you have been deceived. I pity you.

We all come from pond scum - you only have to look at the fossil and DNA record to understand that.


Do you not believe in fossils? Do you not believe in DNA? Do you not believe in astronomy or geology? Are you not a believer in math?

A suggestion - spend the day at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum - or even quicker, have a wander through the woods and really try to explain what you see around you - don't just say "I don't understand that, the invisible guy must have done it"

Well Numbers - if it is insane to you it is because you do not know the inerrant word of God.

Reading all these blogs it is easy to see why the Lord said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt 7:13.

The gate is wide because their are so many...evident by just the sampling on this site.

Bob Dylan said it well in his song "Gotta Serve Somebody"

You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.

It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!

MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You may be an ambassador to England or France,
> You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
> You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
> You may be a socialite with a long string of
> pearls
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
> indeed
> You’re gonna have to serve somebody,
> Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
> But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.
>
> It's one or the other Numbers...I guarantee it!


So I HAVE to serve either God or Satan?
That's going to be very difficult, since I don't believe in either of them.

I would also dare say Christians necessitate a far broader gate than atheists.

MBC member Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I am not a religious person as most who
> are true Christian's... read that Christ-ones,are
> not.
>
> It is not about religion, it is about a
> relationship with Jesus. The Catholic church has
> religion and I am pretty certain there will be
> many among them who will find Matthew 7:22-23 is
> the fruit of their religious faith.
>
> And you are correct that we look to the time when
> all this suffering will be no more for those of us
> who have faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and
> Savior. We may be in this world, but we are not
> of it.


Religions *ARE* relationships with X deity. Don't pretend you don't belong to a religion, you do.

KGD - Kathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Say Finito amigo -
>
> what if you ARE WRONG WRT "no God, no soul, no
> redemption - just physics and worms"?

Then he's wrong. No biggie.

> What if I'm
> right? And if I'm wrong, no loss for me, eh?

What if we are both wrong and Allah smites us both?

> But
> I do believe w/ all my heart as God has healed me
> and allowed me to live to share his LOVE with you
> and others. There is too much evidence, too many
> miracles in my own life to deny His existence.

Then you are most likely mistaken.

MBC Supporter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Numbers - if it is insane to you it is
> because you do not know the inerrant word of God.

I've always been curious as to how someone can believe this is possible. I mean, surely you don't believe that God actually wrote the bible, right? It was written by a variety of men over eons.

That said, some manuscripts are different then others. Which means that some bibles are errant necessarily. Or do you not believe this?

the whole bible innerency thing is a total joke. Bible innerency refers to the original manuscripts being without error, but we do not have the originals. All we have are copies of the originals, which conflict in minor differences with each other. So how can you possibly take a bible innerency position? Oh i see, because we do not have the originals to validate the bible innerency position, we also cannot repute them either! GOTCHA real clever!

That is so funny.

RE Response by "MBC member () - Date: March 27, 2010 12:24AM"

Who are you calling "Francise". You are so mistaken if you were commenting back to me. I'm probably the guy you've seen on Sunday at "Big Church", you've seen at First Light, you seen working in different ministries or even been involved with at Frontline. I've been there, I've seen it and we're watching biblical integrity depart from McLean.

The problems of McLean are mostly financial. It is a financial circus and MOST of the general pastoral team doesn't even know it.

Make it simple and look at Lon's 1040s for the past 5 years. Ask him to provide it. He won't offer it, I guarantee that. You'd think it would be very easy for him to follow Jesus' words, "The Truth shall set you free". If it is God's plan their should nothing to hide or keep private.

So many problems, in fact, all of the housing allowances, compensation rates, etc. would blow most people out of the water. Except for the lower end folks as they would just be upset and insulted to see how much they are NOT in the club.

Heck, ask them about 'special' pastor's home financing. Who raised their down-payments, who bought the houses and then who owns them (or got the title transferred for peanuts). You'll find a very interesting (deceptive) twist on indirect compensation. Most churches will donate a living quarters to their pastor, however when pastor leaves, he leaves the home. McLean goes much further. It is good to be a McLean pastor. While the younger and newer pastors don't have this benefit, the seniors do.

You gotta wonder why Lon use to disclose his salary and all the church details but then one day stopped. THe salaries would cause the congregation to wonder given the benefits of clergy (special tax brackets) but the housing allowances would be the breaker.

I hope you are not so easily impressed by the theatrics, the glitter and the show performance and take time to investigate what is really going on behind the scenes.

Blessed to have my eyes open.

I started attending McLean Bible Church when they opened the Prince William Campus. It is much more convenient to my home than my previous church was. My spiritual walk has grown leaps and bounds since I began attending.

I feel people are threatened by Lon because he speaks the truth, straight out of the Bible. I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him. I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.

As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible Church. You all should have your focus directed towards Obama's administration, and the mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from us, not money we willfully give, rather than how much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy gets no one anywhere.

SoontobeMBCMember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure Lon is compensated highly, but it is what God provides for him
>I assumed Lon was in the million $$$ a year range, and I am not the least bit bothered. He deserves it.


I love this - "God provides?", surely a bit of a surprise to the church members who thought they were providing



I find it hard to believe that any priest/shaman/pastor deserves any multiple of the salary of a fireman, a marine, a police officer or a teacher - let alone the >20x that you're advocating




> As we celebrate Jesus's Ressurection on this
> Easter, I can only pray for the people posting in
> this and the other thread regarding McLean Bible
> Church. You all should have your focus directed
> towards Obama's administration, and the
> mishandling of our tax money that is TAKEN from
> us, not money we willfully give, rather than how
> much a pastor makes at a local church. Jealousy
> gets no one anywhere.



Excellent - yet another delusional right wing christian nutter extolling the virtues of a disgraced religion

Sounds like you were one of those who voted for an administration that p*ssed away over $700 Billion on an unnecessary war in Iraq, widened the gap between the rich and the poor and drove us headlong into the deepest recession since the 20's

I didn't hear much from the right during the period that your tax dollars were being poured into a hole in the sand rather than schools and hospitals - towards what end exactly?

Sounds as if you and a delusional religious group preparing for the End of the World are perfect partners

So, its okay to grossly overpay an executive (because God provides) but not okay to spend taxes on services for the poor and needy (because if God cared, presumably he's provide)?

Mmmm.....

WOW, I am not sure what to write, so let me just start typing to see what develops. I've posted on a message thread like this only once in about the past 10 years. I've taken the past 45 minutes to read the first page and a half of this set of posts that started in August 2008 and to read a few of the last ones here. As an outsider to message threads/posts/whatever they are called, I can say this: I am seeing most people who are posting on here just picking on each other. Most people come across as though they think not only is their side correct, but that they have the distinct, individual answer for everyone else. Name-calling is rampant. "I know better than you" opinions are rampant. Does anyone NOT have all the answers? Or does any one at least NOT have SOME of the answers?
I may not post again, so please do not be surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best regards to all and thanks for the interesting reading.

WowIAmShocked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WOW, I am not sure what to write, so let me just
> start typing to see what develops. I've posted on
> a message thread like this only once in about the
> past 10 years. I've taken the past 45 minutes to
> read the first page and a half of this set of
> posts that started in August 2008 and to read a
> few of the last ones here. As an outsider to
> message threads/posts/whatever they are called, I
> can say this: I am seeing most people who are
> posting on here just picking on each other. Most
> people come across as though they think not only
> is their side correct, but that they have the
> distinct, individual answer for everyone else.
> Name-calling is rampant. "I know better than you"
> opinions are rampant. Does anyone NOT have all
> the answers? Or does any one at least NOT have
> SOME of the answers?
> I may not post again, so please do not be
> surprised if you do not hear from me again. Best
> regards to all and thanks for the interesting
> reading.

If all of this thread was devoted to name calling and one upping, then how could this have been an interesting read?

Geez, religion brings out the crazies.
Attachments:

I'm sorry the people of this church have lost their way. The Catholic church always has their doors open when people in this church are ready to hear the true message of Jesus Christ.

abr135 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry the people of this church have lost
> their way. The Catholic church always has their
> doors open when people in this church are ready to
> hear the true message of Jesus Christ.


And how much will it cost to hear the 'true message' of Jesus Christ?

Dear Sir:

Sorry about your experience at McLean, but please realize, that real people actually go there, and while they aren't perfect, they/we are interested in working on making changes when those needs are expressed.

I have been attending McLean for eight years, but it was very hard to find my place for a while. I kept going because I knew that the sermon was biblically sound, and I was challenged in my own being. It was when I started attending Sunday school that I ended up making real friends. There are plenty of good service opportunities (I volunteer at the clothing ministry and meet all kinds there). Also, there's a huge list of different theme groups -- literally, the Goths have their own group, and those who love high performance vehicles, etc. You'll meet folks with similar interests who may be very different than you in age/experience, but that's part of the awesome network of God's diverse people.

I really hope you will give this a chance again, and make your needs known in a gracious way to someone, so they can try to help you. If you look me up on Facebook, I would be pleased to help as much as I can.

Sincerely,
Sherri LaReaux

I am not a Christian. I do have concerns like many others over the sometimes narrow minded positions that churches such as MBC often adopt. I am also perplexed at any variant of Creationism - whether cast in the form of irreducible complexity or some other dressed up quasi-scientific notion - leave Creationism to divinity class and not science instruction. And I do think that to some degree churches such as MBC encourage anti-intellectualism, which I don't think is helpful or productive. In sum, none of this is my cup of tea.

Having said this, I do think any number of posters here are intolerant. The church does lots of good works (I think undeniable), and provides aid and comfort to a lot of people - and often in a much more personal and productive way than any government agency could perform. It brings happiness to many, so while I have little in common with their views, I don't begrudge their happiness either. One

I don't think publishing staff salaries is helpful or fair, either. Most of the staff did not sign on to be public figures. I do think Solomon should make public his compensation - he is a public figure - and head of one of the larger churches in the country. This is a common sense position - and one that MBC should favor for their own good. But just a thought.

alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean. And i love it there!

ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to hell because they, get this, dont believe and u have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.

2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and we dont like it.

3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do is preach what the bible says thats all and if u think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u better take that up with god since he is the one who wrote it.

ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like really why do you care what he gets paid?

Maddy Blair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.
>
> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.
>
> ok this has to stop dont make fun of lon like
> really why do you care what he gets paid?


You're retarded

Maddy Blair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alright now listen up i happen to go to McLean.
> And i love it there!
>
> ok 1st. we do belive that non-belivers r going to
> hell because they, get this, dont believe and u
> have to believe to go to heaven simple as that.

Okay, so your god is a sadist. What I can't believe is that you are not only *okay* with people suffering for eternity, you actually celebrate the deity who allows it to happen.

Hitler killed Ann Frank because she was Jewish and Christians call him bad. God burns Ann Frank for eternity and Christians call him good.

> 2nd. we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> them like christ does as a person. its just
> another sin like lying and we dont like it.

Okay, so you hate gay people. You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.

> 3rd. we r not wacky, extremist idiots. all we do
> is preach what the bible says thats all and if u
> think the bible is to "wacky and exstreem" then u
> better take that up with god since he is the one
> who wrote it.

Unfortunately this is true. To be an 'extremist' you would have to be a minority. It seems like your views are the majority.

This is just a few words on my experience. I've lived a wealth life of sin. Meaning I have made a lot of money, been a lot of places, had a lot of fun, My belief in GOD has not changed. When I lived the life I wanted; I did. To myself I enjoyed all the selfish things I did. Now I know it was selfish because I know the TRUTH behind WHY I did them. I can justify anything I've done. But as a MAN OF GOD, no longer a selfish acting child,boy, or young man; I know in the sight of GOD I was WRONG in my actions and SELFISH in my choices.

All that to say, when I was wrong I was offended by anyone or anything that exposed my WRONG ACTIONS OR THINKING. Which made me defend and even accuse other of what I thought was WRONG or deceiving. The old statement it take one to know one.

If GOD decides to use you for the purpose of exposer or to inform for him, you will not remain the same. You shall KNOW THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

The things you use to do you don't do them no more! The way you use to think YOU DON'T THINK NO MORE. For NOW SALVATION HAS COME TO YOUR HOUSE TODAY.

The people who have not been changed will talk about you, bring up your past, even try to have you return to the old bad ways of thinking and acting. For THEIR DEEDS ARE SELFISH, THEIR MOTIVES ARE WRONG! They choose to continue in their ways.And will defend, justify, and even accuse for their heart do not believe THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, and GOD CAN AND WILL USE AND GIVE GRACE AND FAVOR TO WHOMEVER HE DECIDES.

But you must 1st believe that GOD IS, CONFESS YOUR SINS, ASK JESUS TO BE LORD OF YOUR LIFE. RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM GOD, THEN WALK BY FAITH, THAT YOU NOW KNOW THE TRUTH AND CONDUCT YOUR ACTION BASED ON THE TRUTH. GOD'S TRUTH.

And YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

There is a simple answer to the question of whether religion, from any standpoint, should be taught in public schools. That answer is to eliminate public education. The government should not be in the business of educating our children about anything, including religion. Down with public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight on this nation!

Maddy Blair Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > because the bible says that homosexuality is worng
> > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still love
> > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > another sin like lying and we dont like it.

Professor Pangloss Replied:
-----------------------------------------------
> Okay, so you hate gay people.
>
> You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

This is an utterly specious response.

He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't make a "distinction without a difference."

His position could be compared to saying, "I love John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute any behavioral sin/wrong).

To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."

In fact, one could very well love John, while hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk (or whatever). An obvious example would be if John was one's husband, or son, or friend.


> It's like saying 'we don't hate black people, we
> just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.

False analogy.

First of all, black is not a behavior.

If you hate someone for "being black," i.e., having black skin, then you do indeed hate black people.

But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people, which draws a distinction between the person and the person's behavior.

I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably believes that all are sinners, himself included (1 John 1:8-10).

But despite their being sinners, he is called to love rather than hate them, for someone who hates his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).

Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or even possible.

And that would be his prerogative.

But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate Maddy's position.

I think some or perhaps many of us have had the experience of having good friends who engaged in certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still considered friends, while not approving of that behavior. I know I've had friends like that - drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.

Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut them off, and end the friendship.

Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.

But that's not the only way to live in this world.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a simple answer to the question of
> whether religion, from any standpoint, should be
> taught in public schools. That answer is to
> eliminate public education. The government should
> not be in the business of educating our children
> about anything, including religion. Down with
> public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight on
> this nation!

Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public schools - when only the wealthy received a proper education and the others were either half taught by some random group of religious extremists or not taught at all. All the better to ensure that handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep for religious indoctrination.

The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic school system are an object lesson in why education can't be left to special interest groups with their own shady rules.

Education is exactly the sort of thing that should be a shared service funded by society. The costs are incurred when families are young and struggle to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued, and can be recouped, over a lifetime.

The biggest problem with American schools isn't the schools themselves - its the fact that half of the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the parents couldn't care less about education.

Much more of a problem is that there are too many religious schools - they're the real insult to any 21 century society.

Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their fantasies to kids and mess with text books.

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a simple answer to the question of
> > whether religion, from any standpoint, should
> be
> > taught in public schools. That answer is to
> > eliminate public education. The government
> should
> > not be in the business of educating our
> children
> > about anything, including religion. Down with
> > public schools!!!!! They suck and are a blight
> on
> > this nation!
>
> Ah, yes. Let's go back to the days before public
> schools - when only the wealthy received a proper
> education and the others were either half taught
> by some random group of religious extremists or
> not taught at all. All the better to ensure that
> handy dandy underclass and a ready supply of sheep
> for religious indoctrination.
>
> The perpetual global revelations of the Catholic
> school system are an object lesson in why
> education can't be left to special interest groups
> with their own shady rules.
>
> Education is exactly the sort of thing that should
> be a shared service funded by society. The costs
> are incurred when families are young and struggle
> to meet the costs, and the benefits are accrued,
> and can be recouped, over a lifetime.
>
> The biggest problem with American schools isn't
> the schools themselves - its the fact that half of
> the kids can't be bothered to learn and half the
> parents couldn't care less about education.
>
> Much more of a problem is that there are too many
> religious schools - they're the real insult to any
> 21 century society.
>
> Oh, and creationist nutters trying to push their
> fantasies to kids and mess with text books.

You apparently are a "graduate" of America's laughable public school system. As such, I have to consider any opinion that you choose to share as uninformed. Public schools must go.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----

> You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> laughable public school system. As such, I have
> to consider any opinion that you choose to share
> as uninformed. Public schools must go.

and what would your proposed alternative would be?

pedophile priests?
profit making small-businesses with no standards?
just give in?
home schooling of the uneducated by the uneducated?
madrassas?
just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
barefoot and pregnant?

clearly many of our schools and school districts have problems - but I don't see you coming up with an scalable alternative which would tackle our national competitiveness problem

Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maddy Blair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > we dont hate gay people we hate what they do,
> > > because the bible says that homosexuality is
> worng
> > > so there for we arnt fans of it but we still
> love
> > > them like christ does as a person. its just
> > > another sin like lying and we dont like it.
>
> Professor Pangloss Replied:
> -----------------------------------------------
> > Okay, so you hate gay people.
> >
> > You are attempting to make a distinction without
> a difference.
>
> This is an utterly specious response.
>
> He didn't say he hates gay people, and he didn't
> make a "distinction without a difference."
>
> His position could be compared to saying, "I love
> John, but I hate his getting drunk" (or substitute
> any behavioral sin/wrong).

Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk driving' is a part of his personality. Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.

> To so hold does not mean that he "hates John."
>
> In fact, one could very well love John, while
> hating a particular behavior such as getting drunk
> (or whatever). An obvious example would be if
> John was one's husband, or son, or friend.

To do this is to compartmentalize John, which is absurd. You can still *love* the person, but the truth is that the drunk driving *IS* relevant to that love.

Pretending that it's not is simply dishonest.

> > It's like saying 'we don't hate black people,
> we
> > just hate their being black'. Utterly absurd.
>
> False analogy.
>
> First of all, black is not a behavior.

Neither is sexual orientation.

You don't like the comparison because it hits too close to home.
That's not my problem.

> If you hate someone for "being black," i.e.,
> having black skin, then you do indeed hate black
> people.
>
> But that's not Maddy's position wrt gay people,
> which draws a distinction between the person and
> the person's behavior.

Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is not a behavior.

> I have not read all his posts, but Maddy sounds
> like a Bible Christian, and as such he presumably
> believes that all are sinners, himself included (1
> John 1:8-10).
>
> But despite their being sinners, he is called to
> love rather than hate them, for someone who hates
> his brother is "in darkness" (1 John 2:9-11). And
> indeed if he hates his brother, he himself risks
> losing salvation (Galatians 5:19-21).
>
> Now a gay person may say: I don't want Maddy's
> kind of "love," a love that repudiates a behavior
> that I consider intrinsic to my person, to "who I
> am." I don't think such "love" is logical, or
> even possible.
>
> And that would be his prerogative.
>
> But the gay person's attitude doesn't obviate
> Maddy's position.
>
> I think some or perhaps many of us have had the
> experience of having good friends who engaged in
> certain behaviors we hated, that we felt were
> wrong and self-destructive, yet whom we still
> considered friends, while not approving of that
> behavior. I know I've had friends like that -
> drunks, drug addicts, adulterers.
>
> Maybe none of your friends engage in any behavior
> you disapprove of. Or if they do, you simply cut
> them off, and end the friendship.

You are, once again, compartmentalizing your friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping behavior'?

If your friend, family member, whatever, was a child molester would you still love him/her the same or would that 'behavior' sour your relationship with them?

If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you. The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize the way you are suggesting you can.

> Perhaps you hate the sin (or wrong) and the sinner
> (or wrongdoer) equally, making no distinction.
>
> But that's not the only way to live in this world.

It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the sin' and love the sinner. You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.

yup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
>
> > You apparently are a "graduate" of America's
> > laughable public school system. As such, I
> have
> > to consider any opinion that you choose to
> share
> > as uninformed. Public schools must go.
>
> and what would your proposed alternative would
> be?
>
> pedophile priests?
> profit making small-businesses with no standards?
> just give in?
> home schooling of the uneducated by the
> uneducated?
> madrassas?
> just toss 'em a bible and let 'em get on with it?
> barefoot and pregnant?
>
> clearly many of our schools and school districts
> have problems - but I don't see you coming up with
> an scalable alternative which would tackle our
> national competitiveness problem


This is the problem with statists like you. Every issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge macro-level response. Education should not be the business of the goverment. Individual families should be left alone to figure out how their children will/should be educated. It's none of your fucking business how your neighbor decides to educate his children. The problem, though, is that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own business. You people are such a pain in the ass.

> This is the problem with statists like you. Every
> issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> macro-level response. Education should not be the
> business of the goverment. Individual families
> should be left alone to figure out how their
> children will/should be educated. It's none of
> your fucking business how your neighbor decides to
> educate his children. The problem, though, is
> that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> business. You people are such a pain in the ass.


This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has to be a baseline-education for children to know whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world would not function as we know it, because all of these self-involved christians would be hunkered over there children. How are they suppose to regulate college admissions when there are parents teaching their kids that there is an invisable sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an education/economic/relgious failure on a massive scale.


AKA - think it through DIPSHIT

the grammar police Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > This is the problem with statists like you.
> Every
> > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a huge
> > macro-level response. Education should not be
> the
> > business of the goverment. Individual families
> > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > children will/should be educated. It's none of
> > your fucking business how your neighbor decides
> to
> > educate his children. The problem, though, is
> > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your own
> > business. You people are such a pain in the
> ass.
>
>
> This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There has
> to be a baseline-education for children to know
> whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the world
> would not function as we know it, because all of
> these self-involved christians would be hunkered
> over there children. How are they suppose to
> regulate college admissions when there are parents
> teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> education/economic/relgious failure on a massive
> scale.
>
>
> AKA - think it through DIPSHIT

You can come up with all kinds of justifications for the state to control our lives and those of our children. Indoctrination of our kids through state-run schools is one of the most blatant abuses of government power that currently exist, yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how to admit students. I'm quite confident that they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in and who doesn't. Why does the state have to provide education in order for it to have validity in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same. Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who are afraid to take control of their own lives. Try to grow a pair, will ya?

If they are going to teach the creation story from the Bible in school, then I think they should teach the whole Bible, not just the pretty sounding verses. You know I think they should teach the verses that have the biblical god teaching humanity that it's ok to buy and sell slaves (and even beat them to the brink of death), and kill even the babies of your enemies in warfare. I think it should be known that the Biblical god commands that a woman's hand be chopped off if she grabs a guys balls in defense. I think it should be known Jesus was proud to claim to be the very god that supposedly said all of this:

•This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' [1 Samuel 15:2-4]
•Moses was angry with the officers of the army who returned from battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live? They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and turned the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.[Num 31:14-18]
•O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little suckling babes and dashes them against sharp rocks! [Psalm 137:8-9]
•When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your slaves and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall kill all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. [Deuteronomy 20:10-14]
•Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them permanent slaves for life. [Leviticus 25:44-46]
•If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. [Exodus 21:20-21]
•If you buy a hired servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Exodus 21:1-4]
•All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing [Christian] masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. [1 Timothy 6:1-2]
•Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. [Titus 2:9-10]
•Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. [1 Peter 2:18-20 (NRSV)]
•Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.[Colossians 3:22-24]
•If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:7-10]
•A slave cannot be corrected by mere words; though he understands, he will not respond.†[Proverbs 29:19]
•When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you see among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [Deut 21:10-14]
•If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her fathers house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. [Deut. 22:20]
•If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]
•If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]
•Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. [Exodus 31:15]
•"Anyone who curses or hits his father or mother must be put to death." [Mthw 15:4; Ex 21:15,17]
•But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD—whether man or animal or family land may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person so devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death. [Leviticus 27:28-29]
•But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. [Numbers 35:22-27 ]
•I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.' [Jer. 19:9]
•Give them, O LORD - what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. [Hosea 9:14]
•If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. [Deuteronomy 13:6-11]
•Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." [Gen. 9:4-8]

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> driving' is a part of his personality.
> Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous.

"Compartmentalizing someone is being disingenuous."

Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?

Pretending that we cannot or do not "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed to behave in such an unnatural
fashion; it's natural for human beings.

For example, it has long been a matter of social convention to "compartmentalize"
talk of politics and religion in social gatherings, as these topics are apt to
trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so doing, we "compartmentalize" both
ourselves and others, for the greater good of maintaining community.

Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in society or personal relations.
Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can no longer maintain his
friendship with a Christian whom he knows disagrees with his atheism. (Or
vice-versa.)

Some groups separate themselves from society because they cannot, or have no
wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews, and the Amish, to name two
prominent examples.

Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot abide inconsistency, and who
would repudiate any friend who does an action they consider wrong.

In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance leads to separation, and in its
more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg, Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."


> > First of all, black is not a behavior.
>
> Neither is sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not like race.

The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and hair texture -- are dictated
by a handful of genes." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist-overviewg

This is not so in the case of homosexuality. According to the very pro-gay
American Psychological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible
genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual
orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that
sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

From a sociological perspective, the history of black oppression and enslavement
that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is radically different than gay
experience.

Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better educated than the general
population. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-commerce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-lesbian-customers.html

They are not denied the right to vote, or forced to sit in the back of the bus,
or denied service in restaurants, or beset by attack dogs when they march.
There are a number of openly gay politicians.

They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays are quite simply not an
oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the experience of blacks in the
pre-Civil Rights era.


> You don't like the comparison because it hits too
> close to home.
> That's not my problem.

Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's the problem.


> Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation is
> not a behavior.

If it was only a question of orientation and not behavior, there would be no
issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases, relations between friends).

Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation only, and not behavior, is
specious.


> You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> friends. If your friend was a rapist, would you
> still 'love' your friend, while hating his 'raping
> behavior'?
> If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> child molester would you still love him/her the
> same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> relationship with them?
> If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe you.

Once again, the only way you have to advance your argument is through false
analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts of violence to to homosexual
acts. The two are not analogous.


> The fact is, you can't *honestly* compartmentalize
> the way you are suggesting you can.

And again I say it's human nature to "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis one's friends and family.


> It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate the
> sin' and love the sinner.

Christianity is premised on the idea that all are sinners, and we're called to love all.

If it were impossible to draw a distinction between the sin and the sinner, we
would be forced to hate everyone (including ourselves).

This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched in American culture high and
low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films like "On the Waterfront,"
"Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for example.

It may be a difficult standard to live up - and doubtless not always is - but
it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of achievement, and one I have
experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of others.


> You maybe able to 'not
> prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
> sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is,
> again, dishonest.

This is a legitimate point.

The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan, and is
not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement for
Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.

As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject, as
distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where flat translation
into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance. http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm

Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than a
repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-acceptance.

Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense, and
obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.

Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, I'd respond the same way - his 'drunk
> > driving' is a part of his personality.
> > Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous.
>
> "Compartmentalizing someone is being
> disingenuous."
>
> Sez who? Miss Manners? The Ethicist? Freud?

Reason, that's 'who'. You aren't taking the entire person into account and you are only seeing what you want to see.

> Pretending that we cannot or do not
> "compartmentalize" our attitudes towards
> others is ridiculous. Robots might be programmed
> to behave in such an unnatural
> fashion; it's natural for human beings.

To an extent, as I believe I indicated. The point is that you cannot *hate* a portion of someone and pretend to love the rest. As I indicated you can, perhaps, dislike something or grudgingly approve of it, but not *hate* it. My rapist example points this out.

> For example, it has long been a matter of social
> convention to "compartmentalize"
> talk of politics and religion in social
> gatherings, as these topics are apt to
> trigger unpleasant and angry disputes. In so
> doing, we "compartmentalize" both
> ourselves and others, for the greater good of
> maintaining community.
>
> Of course, one is free to reject this, whether in
> society or personal relations.
> Thus for example, an atheist might conclude he can
> no longer maintain his
> friendship with a Christian whom he knows
> disagrees with his atheism. (Or
> vice-versa.)
>
> Some groups separate themselves from society
> because they cannot, or have no
> wish to "compartmentalize": certain Orthodox Jews,
> and the Amish, to name two
> prominent examples.
>
> Too, there are rigid personality-types who cannot
> abide inconsistency, and who
> would repudiate any friend who does an action they
> consider wrong.
>
> In sum, an anti-"compartmentalization" stance
> leads to separation, and in its
> more extreme forms has a whiff of fanaticism, eg,
> Hawthorne's "Scarlet Letter."

This is largely a strawman against my position.

>
> > > First of all, black is not a behavior.
> >
> > Neither is sexual orientation.
>
> Sexual orientation is not like race.

It is in the sense that neither are a behavior.

> The outward signs of race, "such as skin color and
> hair texture -- are dictated
> by a handful of genes."
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=d
> oes-race-exist-overviewg
>
> This is not so in the case of homosexuality.
> According to the very pro-gay
> American Psychological Association, "There is no
> consensus among scientists
> about the exact reasons that an individual
> develops a heterosexual, bisexual,
> gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much
> research has examined the possible
> genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and
> cultural influences on sexual
> orientation, no findings have emerged that permit
> scientists to conclude that
> sexual orientation is determined by any particular
> factor or factors."
> http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.p
> df

This is not relevant. I'm not arguing that orientation is *exactly* like race. My comparison is that neither are 'choices'. Your link does not dispute this.


> From a sociological perspective, the history of
> black oppression and enslavement
> that gave rise to the Civil Rights movement is
> radically different than gay
> experience.

?

I'm not arguing that homosexuals were slaves.

> Unlike blacks, gays are more affluent and better
> educated than the general
> population.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/business/e-comme
> rce-report-more-companies-are-working-attract-gay-
> lesbian-customers.html
>
> They are not denied the right to vote, or forced
> to sit in the back of the bus,
> or denied service in restaurants, or beset by
> attack dogs when they march.
> There are a number of openly gay politicians

I'm not arguing that any of those *specific* things occur to homosexuals, although I would say they are being treated as second class citizens with regards to marriage and they have been subject to persecution based on their oreintation (matthew shepard).

You are erect a strawman, without actually *trying* to look at what I brought up.

> They may have their grievances, but in 2010 gays
> are quite simply not an
> oppressed minority in any sense comparable to the
> experience of blacks in the
> pre-Civil Rights era.

With the exception of marriage, you mean, right?

>
> > You don't like the comparison because it hits
> too
> > close to home.
> > That's not my problem.
>
> Your comparison rests on a false analogy. That's
> the problem.

Nonsense, my comparison was meant to point out that orientation was not a behavior or choice - you erect an elaborate strawman to distract from this fact.

>
> > Which is, of course, absurd, since orientation
> is
> > not a behavior.
>
> If it was only a question of orientation and not
> behavior, there would be no
> issue in the real world (eg, laws, court cases,
> relations between friends).

Non sequitur.

> Your attempt to cabin the issue to orientation
> only, and not behavior, is
> specious.

Why, because you say so? That's not compelling.

>
> > You are, once again, compartmentalizing your
> > friends. If your friend was a rapist, would
> you
> > still 'love' your friend, while hating his
> 'raping
> > behavior'?
> > If your friend, family member, whatever, was a
> > child molester would you still love him/her the
> > same or would that 'behavior' sour your
> > relationship with them?
> > If you say it wouldn't, then I don't believe
> you.
>
> Once again, the only way you have to advance your
> argument is through false
> analogy, in this case comparing sociopathic acts
> of violence to to homosexual
> acts. The two are not analogous.

*sigh*

I'm reducing your argument to the absurd. I was not saying homosexuality is the same thing as a violent act. To suggest so is to argue deceptively.

My point is that when you take the clear example of something that is 'hated', most people would be influenced enough to drop the friendship.

My point is that while Christians say they 'hate the sin, love the sinner' they either aren't telling the truth or they truly do hate the sinner.

Remember, all sin is the same in the eyes of God, is it not?

Hence my analogy stands.


> > The fact is, you can't *honestly*
> compartmentalize
> > the way you are suggesting you can.
>
> And again I say it's human nature to
> "compartmentalize," and draconian not to,
> i.e, to take an all-or-nothing stance vis a vis
> one's friends and family.

Again, strawman.

I'm not suggesting that no compartimentalization occurs, I'm suggesting that the compartmentalization that *YOU* suggest is absurd.

You haven't rebutted this - you've simply ignored it or baselessly asserted that it's not analogous.


>
> > It's dishonest to pretend that one can 'hate
> the
> > sin' and love the sinner.
>
> Christianity is premised on the idea that all are
> sinners, and we're called to love all.

Nonsense - do you 'bring the sword' to those you love? Do you let those you love suffer for eternity in torment?

No, it's lip service. It's the same cognitive dissonance that suggests that you can simultaneously *hate* someone and *love* them.

> If it were impossible to draw a distinction
> between the sin and the sinner, we
> would be forced to hate everyone (including
> ourselves).

I wouldn't say *hate*, in this case, I would say that Christianity does teach that humans are fallen and it is only through God that we have any worth.

So, yes, I would say that Christians are commanded to view themselves as worthless. None can do any good apart from God, remember?

> This is an attitude, moreover, which is entrenched
> in American culture high and
> low; in Lincoln's second inaugural, and in films
> like "On the Waterfront,"
> "Raging Bull," and "Dead Man Walking," for
> example.
>
> It may be a difficult standard to live up - and
> doubtless not always is - but
> it is an admirable ideal, not impossible of
> achievement, and one I have
> experienced it in my own life, and in the lives of
> others.
>
>
> > You maybe able to 'not
> > prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love
> the
> > sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise
> is,
> > again, dishonest.
>
> This is a legitimate point.
>
> The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a
> somewhat facile slogan, and is
> not found in the Bible, although it does point
> toward a requirement for
> Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior
> post.
>
> As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as
> meaning to firmly reject, as
> distinguished from "hate" in the sense of
> uncontrolled antipathy or aversion.
> Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term
> "hate," where flat translation
> into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew
> nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>
> Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians
> who live by this motto
> understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a
> foundation for, rather than a
> repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I
> agree, hard to avoid if "hate"
> is understood as antipathy, rather than mere
> rejection or non-acceptance.

So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel. I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.

I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together, if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.

> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.

No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.

So it's a definitional difference then.

This is rather an anticlimax, but I do think it boils down to a definitional
difference. I honestly didn't realize this until I read the second-to-last
sentence of your August 16, 2010 08:34AM post.

I started to draft a response to the entirety of your most recent post, but most
of it turns on side issues, not all of them trivial by any means, but really
rather beside the specific point which drew me into this discussion in the first
place, the controversial "hate the sin, love the sinner" slogan.

I'll respond here to that central issue, which is addressed at the end of your
post (if you were interested, I could finish and post my reply to the other
points you raised).

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to set this up with the relevant portion of
our discussion: You in blue,color> me in green,color> followed by my response in black.


Professor Pangloss wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the
sinner, but not 'hate'. To pretend otherwise is, again, dishonest.color>


Corruption of Blood replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a legitimate point.

The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a somewhat facile slogan,
and is not found in the Bible, although it does point toward a requirement
for Christian behavior, as discussed in my prior post.

As used in this phrase, I understand "hate" as meaning to firmly reject,
as distinguished from "hate" in the sense of uncontrolled antipathy or
aversion. Cf. discussion of New Testament use of the term "hate," where
flat translation into English fails to capture the necessary Hebrew nuance.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm

Too, as a matter of practice, I think Christians who live by this motto
understand it in its proper sense, i.e., as a foundation for, rather than
a repudiation of friendship -- with repudiation, I agree, hard to avoid
if "hate" is understood as antipathy, rather than mere rejection or non-
acceptance.

Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto preserves its proper sense,
and obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you note, impossible of
accomplishment.color>


Professor Pangloss replied:
-------------------------------------------------------
So it's a definitional difference then. Fine, if that's the way you feel.
I'm not sure you can 'not accept' a friend though, but whatever.

I repudiate my friends for eating chocolate and peanut butter together,
if this is the sense that you mean, then we have no issue.color>

> Thus the clear underlying teleogy of the motto
> preserves its proper sense, and
> obviates an unsound reading that would be, as you
> note, impossible of
> accomplishment.

No, you just shift the goal posts, dissolving the discussion. If you want
to water it down to such a thing go right ahead.color>


I assure you, I would not have written such a detailed reply to your August 16
post only to pull an ultimately self-defeating - in that I admitted you had made
a legitimate point - rhetorical move like "shifting the goal posts."

Nor do I wish to water things down. There's still a rather substantial area of
disagreement between us. But it's quite obvious that on the main point we were
mostly talking past each other.

In short, you understand the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" literally,
and on that basis think it makes no sense. Upon consideration, I think that's an
entirely reasonable and understandable interpretation.

By contrast, I understand it from inside my Christian experience. Specifically,
from my experience of having a gay friend, Paul, who knew very well that I was a
conservative Christian, and yet was able to maintain a close friendship with me
for several years.

When I first read the second-to-last sentence of your August 16 post - "You
maybe able to 'not prefer' the sin or 'accept' the sin and love the sinner,
but not 'hate'" - I was confused by the "maybe" typo. Then your point struck
me, and I realized that what you were saying was essentially true, if "hate"
is understood in a literal sense (which, again, is a reasonable and indeed
perfectly natural way to understand it).

I on the other hand interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" based on my
experience with Paul, and a few other friends I've had over the years. I
believed Paul's sexual activity was sinful, no ifs, ands or buts, and this
was no secret. Yet we had a very rich friendship that turned on our mutual
love of the arts, literature, and music. If I had "hated" his sin in the
fullest emotional/psychological meaning of the word, I don't think we could
have been friends. Such an attitude would inevitably poison a friendship.

As noted, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not a direct quotation from
scripture, but a summary slogan or catchphrase (in this sense, perhaps
somewhat similar to "what would Jesus do?").

So what about that word "hate"?

Maddy Blair wrote: "we dont hate gay people we hate what they do, because the
bible says that homosexuality is worng so there for we arnt fans of it but we
still love them like christ does as a person. its just another sin like lying and
we dont like it."

So, for Maddy, homosexuality is "just another sin... like lying."

And "we dont like it," but "we still love them like christ does as a person."

Whatever slogan he might profess, it seems to me that Maddy's attitude is very
far from true hatred.

And basically, I agree with him, although I think genital homosexual activity
is more serious than lying (as indeed I think heterosexual fornication and
masturbation are more serious than lying) (I don't agree with those who hold
that all sins are equal).

In my case, I rejected Paul's sin, but didn't reject him. I could probably
unpack that with greater psychological nuance and precision, but that was my
position in a nutshell. This did not involve a great deal of psychological
strain. Broadly speaking, I might compare it to having a Jewish friend, or an
atheist friend; these entail a rather different dynamic than my friendship with
Paul, yet both would involve fundamental differences of opinion on very serious
issues, indeed matters (in my view) of eternal consequence. (If Paul had been a
sexual predator, such as a rapist or a pedophile, that would be different; if he
was actively pursuing such criminal activity, he would belong in prison. I could
not be friends with an active rapist or pedophile, i.e., a sociopath. If a person
had repented and put away such behavior, friendship might conceivably be
possible, but friendship requires a certain natural affinity; Christians are
called to love all, in the 1 Corinthians 13 sense of agape love, but that is not
equivalent to saying Christians are called to have a particular form of love,
such as friendship (phileo), or romantic love (eros) with all.)

The ground of Christianity is love.

"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone
who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom
he has not seen." 1 John 4:20.

And yet, all are sinners. To reconcile these two ideas requires developing
certain habits of thinking, about one's attitude towards oneself and others,
and about the meaning and purpose of life (cf. Romans 12:2).

The bottom line is, any reasonably mature and orthodox Christian is simply not
going to interpret "hate the sin, love the sinner" in a way that involves, in fact,
hating the sinner.

The "hate the sin" component will be understood along the lines Maddy
articulated it: "its just another sin... and we dont like it.... we arnt
fans of it but we still love them like christ does as a person."

A healthy Christian faith will preserve a right understanding of "hate the sin,
love the sinner," that is to say an understanding rooted in love of, rather than
hatred of, one's neighbor.

An unhealthy faith, I suppose, will misconstrue "hate the sin, love the sinner"
and much else besides.

That said, language does matter, and it's important to express ideas, perhaps
especially theological ideas, with as much clarity as possible. Not that it's
going to happen, but I wouldn't object if the phrase "hate the sin, love the
sinner" were dropped from popular Christian vocabulary: it's imprecise, needlessly
provocative to non-Christians, and could be potentially misleading to at least
some within the Christian community.

tl;dr

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?


I CAN come up with all kinds of justifications because its JUSTIFIED. It's not like you cant send your kids to a private school that fits your views. OR you can move to the mid-west, and find a nice cult to join. Nobody is making your kids attend public schools. Although if you do, your kids are going to think everyone thinks the way they do, and when they go through normal life experiances (applying for a job) they're going to say something extremely offensive, and NOT relize it. The way you're thinking is only going to create more hostility, and close-minded people.

Let's examine the biblical god's wonderful ideas on family values. Let's see if god values the institution of marriage more than he values the god-endorsed institution of male servitude and female slavery.

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for 6 years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free, paying nothing. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him kids, the woman and her kids shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. [Ex. 21:2-6]

The children and mother "belong" to the master?!?!? Evidently the hebrew god does not value the freedom of women and children over the rights of ownership by a slave owner. What if the kids want to stay with their own father, why is this forbidden. Why make the children property of someone who isn't even their father? After all, none of this is their choosing or fault.
That's just not ethical. It isn't right today and it wasn't right then. You just can't reconcile that with the golden rule. If you assert this rubbish came from god, then it’s more than just a depraved law of a bronze-aged society. What we have here is god showing teaching humans that he does not value the rights and opinions of women at all; instead he prefers to give men the right to deny them the most basic of freedoms: who they want to spend their life with.

Do you think women should have any say in the matter of staying with the man of their choosing OR do you agree with the bible that women are the mere property of men?

No offense, but the issue was a definitional one. I'm not sure what there is left to say. If there was a specific point you wanted me to address, please let me know.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the grammar police Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > This is the problem with statists like you.
> > Every
> > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> huge
> > > macro-level response. Education should not
> be
> > the
> > > business of the goverment. Individual
> families
> > > should be left alone to figure out how their
> > > children will/should be educated. It's none
> of
> > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> decides
> > to
> > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> is
> > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> own
> > > business. You people are such a pain in the
> > ass.
> >
> >
> > This is a horrable idea, on many levels. There
> has
> > to be a baseline-education for children to know
> > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> world
> > would not function as we know it, because all
> of
> > these self-involved christians would be
> hunkered
> > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > regulate college admissions when there are
> parents
> > teaching their kids that there is an invisable
> > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> massive
> > scale.
> >
> >
> > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
>
> You can come up with all kinds of justifications
> for the state to control our lives and those of
> our children. Indoctrination of our kids through
> state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> abuses of government power that currently exist,
> yet sheep like you are more than willing to follow
> in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and that
> of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out how
> to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> they'd come up with a way to determine who gets in
> and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> provide education in order for it to have validity
> in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> person and, most importantly, quit trying to argue
> in favor of denying the rest of us to do the same.
> Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies who
> are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> Try to grow a pair, will ya?

This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen

Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country

A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions

If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination

That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system

One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists

Corruption of Blood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>fails to capture the
> necessary Hebrew nuance.
> http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm
>

Any argument that uses the phrase "necessary Hebrew nuance" labels itself as irrelevant

Random set of middle-eastern nomads, thousands of years ago - its like arguing from the markings on Stonehenge

Mr. Know Nothing Stated:

This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen

Religion is by far the most pernicious and pervasive indoctrination at large in this country

A basic right should be for children to be free from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely discredited religions

If you really believed there was any truth in religion, you'd expose it to children as adults once they had the necessary analytical skills to make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the education system to reinforce that indoctrination

That alone, even ignoring the economic and social benefits of universal education. is a fine reason for having a tax-funded high quality secular education system

One of the key outputs of a universal education system is people who can read, count be economically active and make their own rational decisions - not be slaves of some discredited religion and its elites, or random set of extreme christian cultists


Don't for a minute think that public education does not teach religion, years ago it was Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on which public education was based was on the need to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure that the public could read, write, and do simple math. However, that has morphed into whatever is in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in many cases distorts hisorical fact.

slubdawg Wrote:

>
> Don't for a minute think that public education
> does not teach religion, years ago it was
> Christianity, in fact the fundamental premise on
> which public education was based was on the need
> to impart Christian doctrine, as well as ensure
> that the public could read, write, and do simple
> math. However, that has morphed into whatever is
> in vogue. Currently, justifying Islam is the main
> focal point. New textbooks devote an inordinate
> amount of space to Islam and its beliefs and in
> many cases distorts hisorical fact.

This is such mind-bendingly dumb right-wing faux-news BS propaganda

You're clearly right - I've seen the evidence all over my kids math homework

Facts please

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No offense, but the issue was a definitional one.
> I'm not sure what there is left to say. If there
> was a specific point you wanted me to address,
> please let me know.


No, that's fine. I know the slogan does give offense, and just wanted to make the reasoning behind my position clear.

Roman Catholic church>>>protestant churches

Mr. Know-nothing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the grammar police Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > > This is the problem with statists like you.
>
> > > Every
> > > > issue/problem/concern has to be met with a
> > huge
> > > > macro-level response. Education should not
> > be
> > > the
> > > > business of the goverment. Individual
> > families
> > > > should be left alone to figure out how
> their
> > > > children will/should be educated. It's
> none
> > of
> > > > your fucking business how your neighbor
> > decides
> > > to
> > > > educate his children. The problem, though,
> > is
> > > > that leftists like you can NEVER mind your
> > own
> > > > business. You people are such a pain in
> the
> > > ass.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a horrable idea, on many levels.
> There
> > has
> > > to be a baseline-education for children to
> know
> > > whats right from whats wrong. secondly, the
> > world
> > > would not function as we know it, because all
> > of
> > > these self-involved christians would be
> > hunkered
> > > over there children. How are they suppose to
> > > regulate college admissions when there are
> > parents
> > > teaching their kids that there is an
> invisable
> > > sky-daddy and 2+2=7? this would cause an
> > > education/economic/relgious failure on a
> > massive
> > > scale.
> > >
> > >
> > > AKA - think it through DIPSHIT
> >
> > You can come up with all kinds of
> justifications
> > for the state to control our lives and those of
> > our children. Indoctrination of our kids
> through
> > state-run schools is one of the most blatant
> > abuses of government power that currently
> exist,
> > yet sheep like you are more than willing to
> follow
> > in lock step. Well, I value my freedom and
> that
> > of my loved ones. Let the colleges figure out
> how
> > to admit students. I'm quite confident that
> > they'd come up with a way to determine who gets
> in
> > and who doesn't. Why does the state have to
> > provide education in order for it to have
> validity
> > in your mind? Grow up, try to live like a free
> > person and, most importantly, quit trying to
> argue
> > in favor of denying the rest of us to do the
> same.
> > Liberals like you are just worry-wart pussies
> who
> > are afraid to take control of their own lives.
> > Try to grow a pair, will ya?
>
> This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen
>
> Religion is by far the most pernicious and
> pervasive indoctrination at large in this country
>
> A basic right should be for children to be free
> from the poisonous indoctrination of entirely
> discredited religions
>
> If you really believed there was any truth in
> religion, you'd expose it to children as adults
> once they had the necessary analytical skills to
> make a sensible judgment - but you don't, you
> indoctrinate from birth and attempt to pervert the
> education system to reinforce that indoctrination
>
> That alone, even ignoring the economic and social
> benefits of universal education. is a fine reason
> for having a tax-funded high quality secular
> education system
>
> One of the key outputs of a universal education
> system is people who can read, count be
> economically active and make their own rational
> decisions - not be slaves of some discredited
> religion and its elites, or random set of extreme
> christian cultists


Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue because we have government-run schools. Take government out of the equation and the issue of religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like the idea of the government indoctrinating our children through "public" schools are responsible for the fact that religion in the classroom even has to be debated. Fucking morons.

Mr. Know-it-all Wrote:

>
> Talk about a non sequitur. Who said anything
> about religion? Not I. Religion is only an issue
> because we have government-run schools. Take
> government out of the equation and the issue of
> religion is rendered moot. Those of you who like
> the idea of the government indoctrinating our
> children through "public" schools are responsible
> for the fact that religion in the classroom even
> has to be debated. Fucking morons.

I call BS on that

The vocal majority of people destroy public education in the US have always been, and will always be religious right wingers

Who else is scared that other people's kids get a wide education which is not dominated by religion?

By your argument the only reason why we have religion in the public classroom is because we have public classrooms

If you don't like public education don't use it