Palin and censorship

[Von Tonner]

If I were a Palin supporter this would really disturb me.

Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so. According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired.
I see a similarity here with the current investigation on whether Palin abused her official powers - seems she has the same mindset as Bush 'You are either with us, or against us'.

Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum. Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor’s job
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&format=&page=2&listingType=2008pres#articleFull

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."


http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/

[Konovalov]

Sounds a little like a continuation of the last 8 years. :hmm:

[Thomen]

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/

According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either.

[Foxtrot]

No intention for character assassination but why her grades are holy grail, and can't be disclosed? Is there something fishy about her attending 5 colleges in 6 years?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/palin-attended-5-colleges_n_124036.html

[Kapt Z]

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/

According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either.

The problem lies in "Teach both". They are hardly equal. One is a well established scientific theory, the other is a matter of faith. I want my young daughter to learn how the world works in PUBLIC school and how her soul works in SUNDAY school.

[SUBMAN1]

I love it how all the details 'are missing'. Who knows what happened in this exchange? Did it even happen? Grasping for straws.

-S

[Wolfehunter]

Please tell me you guys are going to support someone like her? Seriously are the americans going to put good people into power or just more crooks with crazy extreme ideologies?:-?

[SUBMAN1]

Please tell me you guys are going to support someone like her? Seriously are the americans going to put good people into power or just more crooks with crazy extreme ideologies?:-?I don't think you have to worry. Its all the Euro's that are posting all this stuff and they can't vote.

-S

[Frame57]

I grew up here in Kalifornia and never even heard of creationism being taught in school. It was not when i was a kid. At least not in public schools. Maybe this is an issue with Catholic schools but to my knowledge it never has been one in public schools. My kids were never taught it either. Creationsim is a faith based issue and belongs in the faith realm. Anyone here ever been taught this subject in a public school?:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

I grew up here in Kalifornia and never even heard of creationism being taught in school. It was not when i was a kid. At least not in public schools. Maybe this is an issue with Catholic schools but to my knowledge it never has been one in public schools. My kids were never taught it either. Creationsim is a faith based issue and belongs in the faith realm. Anyone here ever been taught this subject in a public school?:hmm:Nope, and it shouldn't be taught either.

-S

[Von Tonner]

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/
According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either.

No, I have no problem with teaching evolution and creationism in school - in fact I would support it. BUT I have a huge problem with an elected official determining what books I can or not read in the local Library. Back in the days of my countries sordid past one book that comes to mind that was banned was "Black Beauty" - a story as you might know of a horse. But the powers that be saw "Black" equated with beauty and banned it. Is that what you want to see in a VP of the leader of the free world - I hope to god not.

[Kapt Z]

I grew up here in Kalifornia and never even heard of creationism being taught in school. It was not when i was a kid. At least not in public schools. Maybe this is an issue with Catholic schools but to my knowledge it never has been one in public schools. My kids were never taught it either. Creationsim is a faith based issue and belongs in the faith realm. Anyone here ever been taught this subject in a public school?:hmm:

No, but then again I live in NJ which makes me almost French.

[Tchocky]

No, but then again I live in NJ which makes me almost French.
:lol:

[Frame57]

I grew up here in Kalifornia and never even heard of creationism being taught in school. It was not when i was a kid. At least not in public schools. Maybe this is an issue with Catholic schools but to my knowledge it never has been one in public schools. My kids were never taught it either. Creationsim is a faith based issue and belongs in the faith realm. Anyone here ever been taught this subject in a public school?:hmm:

No, but then again I live in NJ which makes me almost French.Naw, you gotta lotta good gumba's livin in Joisey...:D

[Platapus]

Censoring books in libraries. :nope:

Hard to believe there are people in favour it this crap in the US. :nope:

[Kapt Z]

I grew up here in Kalifornia and never even heard of creationism being taught in school. It was not when i was a kid. At least not in public schools. Maybe this is an issue with Catholic schools but to my knowledge it never has been one in public schools. My kids were never taught it either. Creationsim is a faith based issue and belongs in the faith realm. Anyone here ever been taught this subject in a public school?:hmm:

No, but then again I live in NJ which makes me almost French.Naw, you gotta lotta good gumba's livin in Joisey...:D

Heck yeah! And even our Republicans are liberals! :rock:

[Tchocky]

Palin, oil, polar bears and stuff (0% porn) :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-the-real-scandal-920803.html

Read that on the train home today. Good read.

[Foxtrot]

Please tell me you guys are going to support someone like her?
I support her because she is hawt. Think about it: McCain dies, Palin becomes ze President of ze United States.:rock: Whole world will be jealous of us.

:oops:

[AVGWarhawk]

Nothing concerns me about McCain or Palin. The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.

[Tchocky]

Nothing concerns me about McCain or Palin. The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.

Nothing?

[Skybird]

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/

According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either.
I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

[Digital_Trucker]

The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.
Getting to be? It has been for as long as I can remember (which consists of mainly last week:doh:)

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

Is state-sponsored censorship less harmful than state-sponsored endorsement?

I can't disagree with you on this, sky, because of my capitalist perspective. After all, if more people learn things like creationism, the rest have an advantage over them in many respects in a market economy. I'm also a proponent of privatized education. Apples and oranges in that respect.

But I would like you to expound on this a bit if you don't mind. I will play devil's advocate and ask you how you would determine what lessons are acceptable for public schooling, and what criterion you would use. How can you "have a problem" with them and still respect their individual sovereignty?

Once again, not an argument (although you may treat it as such if you wish), I'd just like to hear your perspective.

[Tchocky]

If this turns out to be true, she'll be dying for some censorship.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-“racist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean”/

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

I have my doubts, given the anonymous source. We'll see how it turns out.

[Digital_Trucker]

Congress should pass a law that states that you can't quote someone unless you give their name. I really get sick and tired of anonymous sources. For all we know the "journalists" (and I use the term very loosely) in half the articles (probably more appropriately called stories) could make up whatever they want to make up.

Not saying that's the case here, just b!tching about "journalism" in general.

Edit : I wonder where these "journalists" were when Jesse Jackson was recorded making his racist remarks against Obama?

Oh yeah, this is where they were http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/07/18/come-on-jesse-dont-hate-the-playa-hate-the-game/#more-582

[UnderseaLcpl]

Congress should pass a law that states that you can't quote someone unless you give their name. I really get sick and tired of anonymous sources. For all we know the "journalists" (and I use the term very loosely) in half the articles (probably more appropriately called stories) could make up whatever they want to make up.

Not saying that's the case here, just b!tching about "journalism" in general.

Edit : I wonder where these "journalists" were when Jesse Jackson was recorded making his racist remarks against Obama?

Careful DT. Anonymous sources have been of great value in some investigations into organized crime, politics, and consumer reporting. And how would you enforce such a law anyway? People would only lie about their identities. I f you required them to present an ID and appear in person, many truthful anonymous sources wouldn't even come forward.

Journalists do need to be more responsible, but does that burden lie with the state, or the viewers?

[Digital_Trucker]

I don't want any more government control of anything than anyone else does (well, maybe some do). Just a minor rant on what used to be a noble profession now being turned into a joke by every Tom, Dick and Jane having their totally agendized websites and calling it "journalism".

[Tchocky]

Neither of these are heavily journalistic pieces, both are more like feature pieces or op-ed articles. Anyhoo, anonymous sources contribute a hell of a lot. That whole whistleblower thing, too.

[Digital_Trucker]

Be it on this forum or pretty much everywhere else, the right wingers complain that the press is a pile a junk licking lefties' boots, and the left wingers complain that the media are bought by the right. So I guess it's pretty well balanced overall.

About the article, wow, how dare that pseudo journalist investigate the record of the first beautiful woman picked for VP ? These people sure need to learn some manners :down:
Yep, how dare they indeed? BTW, how many posts have you counted here where the left wingers are complaining about the right wing owning the media? Maybe I'm blind but I don't see that many folks complaining about the media not giving the left a fair shake.

Also, BTW, I guess you missed the part where I said that I wasn't accusing this "journalist" of anything, just making a generalized observation. Neither did I mention that I was griping about leftist or rightist media, but media in general. Or were you not addressing me? If not, then never mind:up:

Edit : Tchocky, good point about them being op-ed pieces. The problem is that too many people read what is in reality an op-ed piece and assume it is fact. Maybe we should have labelling on our media like we do on everything else.

[Tchocky]

Edit : Tchocky, good point about them being op-ed pieces. The problem is that too many people read what is in reality an op-ed piece and assume it is fact. Maybe we should have labelling on our media like we do on everything else.
You can't legislate for stupidity, really. People listen to Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken and take it as legitimate. The same people read hard news and refuse to believe it.

[Digital_Trucker]

Edit : Tchocky, good point about them being op-ed pieces. The problem is that too many people read what is in reality an op-ed piece and assume it is fact. Maybe we should have labelling on our media like we do on everything else. You can't legislate for stupidity, really. People listen to Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken and take it as legitimate. The same people read hard news and refuse to believe it.
Exactly my point. I wasn't suggesting legislation, just that it would be kind of op-ed writers who aren't quite as obvious or well-known to label their material as such. It was just a thought. Legislation for stupidity happens all the time, that's why de-evolution is progressing at such a rapid rate:D

[Digital_Trucker]

It was more of a general observation even though I got started by your post :yep:

The first thing that came out about Palin is basically "wow she's hot, she's totally qualified", "she's (hotter) more qualified than Obama" etc etc. As much as you may dislike that sort of article and as inaccurate as it could be, it usually boosts the other papers to find more about the story, be it to dig into it or to debunk it. Either way the info benefits from it.
Understood on the general observation and where you were coming from. IMHO, the problem today isn't lack of news, it's a totally mind-numbing waterfall of information flowing ever onward. I find myself having to research who the author of an "article" is before I take note of unsubstantiated claims to research. Nine times out of ten, the "author" is just some Joe Blow who has an opinion and a website (I have more than enough of the former and want no part of the latter), so I tend to be a bit skeptical about anything I read, especially since the vast majority of the claims can't be researched due to the fact that they are from "unnamed sources". In the case of the major media, it's hit and miss. They all mess up and they have their agendas, too. What are we supposed to believe? Only what we see, I suppose.

[Tchocky]

so I tend to be a bit skeptical about anything I read, especially since the vast majority of the claims can't be researched due to the fact that they are from "unnamed sources".

Really?

[Digital_Trucker]

so I tend to be a bit skeptical about anything I read, especially since the vast majority of the claims can't be researched due to the fact that they are from "unnamed sources".
Really?
The vast majority of which I spoke is the Joe Blow internet blog type of claim that an unnamed so and so said such and such.

Edit : For instance in the article written by the American "journalist" who resides in Canada about Palin, I found one identified resident who was quoted. There were several other quotes and references to residents that could never be verified because they are not identified. Except maybe for the waitress "Lucille" at the unknown restaurant where some of Ms. Palin's racist remarks were made. I saw several references to amounts spent by her in remodelling her office, but no references as to where those figures came from. Granted, I could spend days trying to find out where these figures came from and if they were even true, but the average person doesn't have the time (and some not the willingness) to attempt to prove or disprove these statements. So, they will either be believed because they are in print or ignored because they are not referenced. If you're not going to name names, at least quote sources when you state supposed facts. I guess that would be too much trouble for a "journalist". Wish they would have taught school that way when I was required to write research papers, it would have been a lot easier not to have to keep track of trivial little things like where my information came from.

[Skybird]

Is state-sponsored censorship less harmful than state-sponsored endorsement?
I don't define secularism as "state-sponsored censorship". Instead, secularism is the precondition for protecting against religiously sponsored censorship.

and btw, secularism is a principle laid down in your nation's first amendement in the Bill of Rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The state should guarantee the free practice of religion (which is okay with me as long as that practice does not require me to a.) witness or b) participate in it, or c) to compromise my own freedom in favour of it - an individual's freedom ends where he/she starts to limit the freedom of others inf avour of their own). But from that can not be concluded that the state/ congress shall act in favour of rfelgious establoishements, or pass laws favouring any religion's demands and interests. And that is not just a conclusion, but is written there black on white.

[Digital_Trucker]

The fact that you're "forced" to research the background of authors is more a pro than a con isn't it ?

Quite true, as I've grown up and the "information" world has grown exponentially it is definitely a good thing to research the background of authors. My point was that just as much time is spent verifying who authors are as is spent reading "news", which is never a good thing.

As for unnamed sources, it's up to you to find it fishy or truthworthy. Some claims sound believable, some sound outright silly.
Some of the silliest claims have been true and some of the most logical have been false.
It depends also who's making them, if you're a long time reader of paper A or X, you should be able to know whether you can trust anonymous piece of info coming from it.
The only french paper I care reading almost never cites even a surname. It's always "a close relative to", "someone who know Mr...", and yet I trust them 100% for a simple reason, I've been reading it for years, I've heard of many "serious" papers and "serious" people bitching on it, but they never ever debunked a single claim.
Not being caught lying is not evidence of truthfulness. A careful liar will appear just as truthful as a bumbling truth-teller.
The latest example that comes to mind is the case of the French soldiers killed in Afghanistan. 10 days ago that paper claimed that 4 of them were actually captured before the fight. Government and army officials denied and bitched all they could, the mainstream press finally put its nose in it and now finally the government is admitting that at least one of the dead was stabbed and not killed by gunfire.
Granted, things such as this do get investigated by entities with the power to determine the correctness or incorrectness of the original report. Many claims, such as who said what about who, aren't deemed important enough for anyone with the resources to adequately investigate to do so.

All the people who pass information to that paper put their job and eventually social life at stake, if there was no anonymous source that paper wouldn't exist and we would only get what the mainstream media care to bother about.
In many cases where confidential informants are involved, I whole-heartedly agree with keeping the identity of the source a secret. In the case of the above piece regarding Ms. Palin I just don't see it. Jeez, it's like Billy running to the teacher and saying some "unidentified kid" on the playground said the principal is a bigot. It has no place in the story, unless of course you've got nothing else to write about.

[Thomen]

Yet she has no problem with wanting to reintroduce creationism as a subject in public schools.

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin (http://www.thelangreport.com/tag/sarah-palin/) wants creationism taught in science classes. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/
According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either. I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

[UnderseaLcpl]

secularism as "state-sponsored censorship". Instead, secularism is the precondition for protecting against religiously sponsored censorship.

and btw, secularism is a principle laid down in your nation's first amendement in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is. But government-sponsored education is not. In fact, it is not stated anywhere in the constitution of the U.S.A.
This is only a problem because the government was unconstitutionally granted fiat powers over education.




The state should guarantee the free practice of religion (which is okay with me as long as that practice does not require me to a.) witness or b) participate in it, or c) to compromise my own freedom in favour of it - an individual's freedom ends where he/she starts to limit the freedom of others inf avour of their own). But from that can not be concluded that the state/ congress shall act in favour of rfelgious establoishements, or pass laws favouring any religion's demands and interests. And that is not just a conclusion, but is written there black on white.


I totally agree, with the minor exception of point "a". The reason has a great deal to do with the legal practice currently excersised in the U.S.
I would argue that one is not exempted from witnessing others practicing their beliefs.
To me, that is a ridiculous notion. Even extremists are not harming anyone by practising their beliefs in public. This is why we tolerate neo-nazi and KKK demonstrations. The subscribers of such beliefs only invite further humiliation and ridcule upon themselves by making their ignorant philosphies public.

Witnessing others practising their beliefs goes hand in hand with the inviolability of personal freedom.

It is all a matter of personal choice. People should have the right to attempt to convince others to think like they do, so long as they do not force the issue and leave when asked to.

Jehovah's witnesses are a pain in my a$$ because they come to my door several times a month and ask me to subscribe to their philosophy. I always politely turn them down or engage them in a lively debate concerning their religion to no avail.
But they are not violating my personal freedom. I can always close the door on them if I wish.

Legal professionals do not see this the same way. Do you remember when I wrote to you about the "culture of victimhood" in the U.S. ?
This is largely due to the legal profession. They can easily make a multi-milllion dollar case out of some person being offended by some other person's beliefs or their practice of said beliefs.
The U.S. legal code occupies an entire wing of the library of congress. There is no person on earth who understands it in its' entirety, but it is the law that governs us. What a paradox that is! We are governed by a law that no one can understand?

Once again we see the indestructible mechanics of capitalism at work. The legal professionals are beneficiaries of a complex legal code. By no small coincidence, most U.S. legislators, now and in the past, are/were lawyers.

Getting back to the point, these lawyers/legislators are greatly benefitted by a legal code that allows things like civil lawsuits over practise of personal beliefs to take place. As such, the preservation of personal freedoms has been distorted.


The truth of the matter is that one should have the frredom to be affected or unaffected by others' belefs as they choose. And this does include children, and their parents.


Finally, I posit that no state can ever administer a truly objective, or even effective, belief system. Look at the Soviet Union. Despite cradle-to-grave indoctrination in socialist philosphy, there was a black market, and a strong revolutionary presence, and even a military anti-establishment presence.

Keep in mind that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, as I would like to see your views.

[Sailor Steve]

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.
But are "both" the only options? What about the ancient Greek and Egyptian versions of creation? Hindu? 'Creation Science' springs directly from a religious belief, and its propagators do their best to hide that fact; but read any of their published books and that is the bottom line. It is one religious belief asking to be taught in publically funded schools as 'science', at the expense of all others.

[Skybird]

Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.

I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear. :D Nothing better than to start early... :lol:

Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.

Lance,

when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.

As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not, religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public - RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.

But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Diopos]

...
If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well.

Ok! I can tolerate many things but leave the "flying spagetthi monster" out of this discussion! Infidel!!!!!

:)

[Skybird]

...
If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well.

Ok! I can tolerate many things but leave the "flying spagetthi monster" out of this discussion! Infidel!!!!!

:)
?!?! Oh you sinner, I tell you it is written that you will die a miserable death in boiling salt water! Pesto shall fill your lungs and stop you from breathing, garlic shall burn your skin until it peels of, and you shall be digested for a thousand years while still being alive, oh sinner! This the monster has revealed to those who believe, and justice shall reach all who doubt through the hands of those who put their trust in pasta.

[August]

By the way I don't understand what's the big deal with this with christians in the US. After seeing it's a hot debate here I asked my only christian friend about her view on creation and she replyed "uh well, good question, I've been raised in a christian family but we never saw it as anything but a legend".

It's not as big a deal as the press, both here and over there, would have you believe Mik.

[Thomen]

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW. But are "both" the only options? What about the ancient Greek and Egyptian versions of creation? Hindu? 'Creation Science' springs directly from a religious belief, and its propagators do their best to hide that fact; but read any of their published books and that is the bottom line. It is one religious belief asking to be taught in publically funded schools as 'science', at the expense of all others.
That's where some religious people are confused I think, as in "being told what they have to believe". Evolution is not about believing, creation is.
By the way I don't understand what's the big deal with this with christians in the US. After seeing it's a hot debate here I asked my only christian friend about her view on creation and she replyed "uh well, good question, I've been raised in a christian family but we never saw it as anything but a legend".

Good points, both of you! :up:

My wife's ex-husbands wife, is a very devout person and it can get quite problematic when she is around.. hehe
Oh, and interestingly she comes from Wassilla, Alaska. No kidding.
Maybe we are in the middle of scheme to invade and take over the lower 48.... /just kidding ;)

[Kapt Z]

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW. But are "both" the only options? What about the ancient Greek and Egyptian versions of creation? Hindu? 'Creation Science' springs directly from a religious belief, and its propagators do their best to hide that fact; but read any of their published books and that is the bottom line. It is one religious belief asking to be taught in publically funded schools as 'science', at the expense of all others.
That's where some religious people are confused I think, as in "being told what they have to believe". Evolution is not about believing, creation is.
By the way I don't understand what's the big deal with this with christians in the US. After seeing it's a hot debate here I asked my only christian friend about her view on creation and she replyed "uh well, good question, I've been raised in a christian family but we never saw it as anything but a legend".

Good points, both of you! :up:

My wife's ex-husbands wife, is a very devout person and it can get quite problematic when she is around.. hehe
Oh, and interestingly she comes from Wassilla, Alaska. No kidding.
Maybe we are in the middle of scheme to invade and take over the lower 48.... /just kidding ;)

'The Stepford Wives of Wassilla'????? :huh:

....oh, that was pretty pathetic. Sorry!:roll:

[Enigma]

Per the dellusion on the Repubs part, who continue to spew whatever they are force fed, it seems.....

-Lacking in extensive experience = for Dems: Not ok. For Repubs = Fantastic! She'll shake up Washington!

-Making a good speech: for Dems: Being a good public speaker doesnt make you worthy of the white house. For Repubs = This woman is great, based on one speech! Make her VP to a 73 year old man with a history of cancer!

It's lunacy. 2 of the biggest flip flops in recent memory undertaken not by a candidate, but by a whole friggin party, and somehow the giant liberal media beast have missed it.....:roll:

[August]

Per the dellusion on the Repubs part, who continue to spew whatever they are force fed, it seems.....

No more than Democrats who are supposed to be the champions of women and minorities making catty little remarks about her daughters pregnancy.

-Lacking in extensive experience = for Dems: Not ok. For Repubs = Fantastic! She'll shake up Washington!

Lacking extensive experience is a much bigger problem in a president than a VP doncha think?

-Making a good speech: for Dems: Being a good public speaker doesnt make you worthy of the white house. For Repubs = This woman is great, based on one speech!

Last I knew the VP doesn't live in the White House.

Make her VP to a 73 year old man with a history of cancer!

That's pure age bigotry and one of our greatest presidents was crippled and a Democrat to boot. Maybe next you'll say that women don't possess the temperament for leadership positions? :roll:

It's lunacy. 2 of the biggest flip flops in recent memory undertaken not by a candidate, but by a whole friggin party, and somehow the giant liberal media beast have missed it.....

They haven't missed it as far as i can tell. For example you seem to be particularly well informed. Now how did that happen if the giant liberal media beast missed it?

[Enigma]

No more than Democrats who are supposed to be the champions of women and minorities making catty little remarks about her daughters pregnancy.

Actually, yes, alot more than the Democrats. And, it was the Republicans who used this pregnancy as a political pawn, not the Dems. Oh, and if Obama had a teenage daughter who was pregnant? The repubs would be respectful and silent, right? Ha.

Lacking extensive experience is a much bigger problem in a president than a VP doncha think?

The choice of VP has to be prepared for the Presidency on day 1. I'm sure thats written somwhere and you can look up the details of the vice presidents position and duties in the event of something unthinkable happening to the Prez. If Obama isn't qualified, then Palin sure isn't. You Repubs love having your cake and eating it too. Sad part is, most of the time, you get it....


Last I knew the VP doesn't live in the White House

Yeah, this isnt worthy of a response beacause it's incredibly nanny nanny boo boo childish, but you are correct, August. But I was referring the the Vice Presidency, which I beleive holds an office somwhere in the WH, and frankly, you knew that, so grow up. Oh, and lets not overlook the fact that you completely avoided the point. The Repubs now beleive that they should back Palin based on one speech. One speech. However, Obama's thousands of speeches, 2 books, debates etc don't qualify him for anything. It's republican hypocrisy at its finest. Given the fact the the McCain team is all but hiding this woman from the media, I don't think its a stretch to say that she can appeal to the base while shes shouting pre prepared lines carefully written by staffers from the safety of a friendly convention podium, but is such a light weight, they won't put here near a microphone or in front of a press conference without having filled her with enough party line nonsense, rhetoric and talking points to satisfy them. McCain's campaign is hoping politics work with this VP pick. They can't rely on her having any substance of her own. If they could, she'd be talking. She ain't.


That's pure age bigotry and one of our greatest presidents was crippled and a Democrat to boot. Maybe next you'll say that women don't possess the temperament for leadership positions?

I'll ignore the sheer stupidity of suggesting I'm a bigot, but if you think the voters shouldn't consider who would be running the country should the unthinkable happen, then you vote with your heart, and not your mind. It's a worthy thing to consider, and doesn't make anyone a bigot. Maybe next you'll say you dont want to see a black man in the White House. I don't know or think that you will, but while we're making dumb assumptions....

They haven't missed it as far as i can tell. For example you seem to be particularly well informed. Now how did that happen if the giant liberal media beast missed it?


I know this may sound like an incredibly bizarre concept to you, but I heard the speeches and reactions frpm Republicans on the floor of the convention while I drove accross the country over the laast few days, and I formulated this position and opinion all on my own, without the help of a talk show host. Incredible, eh?

PS - Excuse the bad spelling and punctuation errors. They have MAC's in this here hotel, and I'm MAC disabled. Ha.

[SS107.9MHz]

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Amen to that!:rotfl:

[SS107.9MHz]

Just to add something up to the whole undisclosure of and unidentified sources, the previous article continues n this one

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/06/sarah-palin-and-me/

At the risk of repeating what has been said, it's obvious that the site has an agenda, so does everybody else, in ny view we have to be skeptical of any source, even those we trust, but can't deny one alltogether just bec ause they don't adress our iews and opinions... but thing is, where there's smoke there's fire, we should try to get the most of the possibillity to gather information like we can now and draw our conclusions from there...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lance,
I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.



Yes, your essay did make your position on religion clear, and was a good read as well. Thanks again for that:up:

And we do agree on limiting the influence of religion in secular, and especially political, affairs. So do not think that we are at odds over this. Like I said, I am only playing Devil's Advocate.

I was more interested to see what methods you would use to keep religion out of schools, politics, and public life in general. Looking back, I communicated this poorly. Sorry for that.

So, what do you think? Any public policies you would favor? And would you be politically opposed to creationism being taught in private schools?

[August]

Actually, yes, alot more than the Democrats. And, it was the Republicans who used this pregnancy as a political pawn, not the Dems. Oh, and if Obama had a teenage daughter who was pregnant? The repubs would be respectful and silent, right? Ha.
Sure, go on believing that.

The choice of VP has to be prepared for the Presidency on day 1. I'm sure thats written somwhere and you can look up the details of the vice presidents position and duties in the event of something unthinkable happening to the Prez. If Obama isn't qualified, then Palin sure isn't. You Repubs love having your cake and eating it too. Sad part is, most of the time, you get it....
:roll: yeah ok. Nice try at dodging the question. Bottom line here is that if you're right then we have a problem only if the "unthinkable" happens, whereas with your candidate we have a problem the second he sits his butt down in the oval office, but to you there's no difference, right?

Yeah, this isnt worthy of a response beacause it's incredibly nanny nanny boo boo childish
I know it wasn't but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't your intention to come off like that. Perhaps i was wrong. "nanny nanny boo boo"? :roll:

but you are correct, August. But I was referring the the Vice Presidency, which I beleive holds an office somwhere in the WH, and frankly, you knew that, so grow up. Oh, and lets not overlook the fact that you completely avoided the point. The Repubs now beleive that they should back Palin based on one speech. One speech.
If you seriously think that's all there was to it then i have a bridge i'd like to sell you.

However, Obama's thousands of speeches, 2 books, debates etc don't qualify him for anything.
Actually the "thousands" (more like dozens) of speeches, 2 books and debates, etc have yet to show he is qualified to do anything other than blather about "change". There's no substance to the man. The Dems have nominated an empty suit and I think that will become apparent to the nation once the presidential debates start.

It's republican hypocrisy at its finest. Given the fact the the McCain team is all but hiding this woman from the media, I don't think its a stretch to say that she can appeal to the base while shes shouting pre prepared lines carefully written by staffers from the safety of a friendly convention podium, but is such a light weight, they won't put here near a microphone or in front of a press conference without having filled her with enough party line nonsense, rhetoric and talking points to satisfy them. McCain's campaign is hoping politics work with this VP pick. They can't rely on her having any substance of her own. If they could, she'd be talking. She ain't.
Well see, but i'm betting the VP debates will prove you wrong. Still, it's only the VP whereas your lightweight is trying to get elected to President.

I'll ignore the sheer stupidity of suggesting I'm a bigot, but if you think the voters shouldn't consider who would be running the country should the unthinkable happen, then you vote with your heart, and not your mind. It's a worthy thing to consider, and doesn't make anyone a bigot. Maybe next you'll say you dont want to see a black man in the White House. I don't know or think that you will, but while we're making dumb assumptions....
I'm not suggesting anything. The Dems have been displaying age bigotry ever since McCain won the nomination and their tactics so far against Palin are pure sexism. Personally I hope they keep alienating old people and women who after all are two of the largest voter groups in American politics.

I know this may sound like an incredibly bizarre concept to you, but I heard the speeches and reactions frpm Republicans on the floor of the convention while I drove accross the country over the laast few days, and I formulated this position and opinion all on my own, without the help of a talk show host. Incredible, eh?
So now you're claiming to be more perceptive than the entire American media? Maybe the Dems should have nominated you then. :D

PS - Excuse the bad spelling and punctuation errors. They have MAC's in this here hotel, and I'm MAC disabled. Ha.
Who isn't?

[Wolfehunter]

Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.

I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.

Hypocrisy FTW.

You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.

I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear. :D Nothing better than to start early... :lol:

Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.

Lance,

when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.

As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not, religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public - RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.

But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

I'm with skybird on the keep it personal.... I believe religion shouldn't be in schools but at home or in their church.

If a child wants to learn about a religion they should be able to do it on their own time with parental supervision.