NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4830_90.htm

Sixty-four percent (64%) of those surveyed agree with the statement that "religion is under attack" in America; 32 percent disagree. Among those identifying themselves as fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 80 percent agree; 19 percent disagree.
(graph (http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/poll_files/frame.htm#slide0002.htm))

Also, 56% favor teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution.

But this is not the entire point of my post. It is this: Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Many democrats are also against creationism in schools, but don't address the public support for it. So how does a democrat who puts relevance in public opinion of Bush, respond to public opion that supports creationism?

*** PLEASE do not get into the actual subjects of creationism/evolutionism or Bush is great/Bush sucks..

Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Many democrats are also against creationism in schools. So how does a democrat who puts relevance in public opinion of Bush, respond to public opion that supports creationism?
I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.

But this is not the entire point of my post. It is this: Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Some things are covered under public support. Others are not.

For instance, suppose there were two things under consideration: The success of the president, and whether or not women should be allowed to vote.

You might look to the people for an opinion on the president. However, women being allowed to vote is a civil rights issue. It is Constitutionally mandated, no matter what the majority may say. Thus, even if a majority wanted to end women's suffrage, it wouldn't matter, as it would be unConstitutional to do so.

This is the same thing. It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in schools. Thus, majority opinion means nothing.

Let me get this straight… people say Bush is bad because other people say he's bad?

I'm no fan of Bush, but that takes the herd mentality to an extreme.

I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.

Wow. That was the quickest generalisation I've seen in a while. Post #2!

Sweet. You the sweeping generalisations gunslinga!

Alfred, it certainly depends on yrou point of view, but Dem makes a really good point. Public opinion about how the leader of our country is doing I think is important is it not? I think it's sad that the Christians think their religion is under attack even though they make up the majority of the country. I also think that it's sad that they think they are under sttack just because we don't want to teach christianity in science class, or allow teachers to lead group prayers.

Eutrusca shows his true colors once again. Good going, in all your years learning how to treat others with respect, you still fail to be respectful yourself despite all your ramblings about how you grew up in a time when people knew how to treat each other.

Wow. That was the quickest generalisation I've seen in a while. Post #2!

Sweet. You the sweeping generalisations gunslinga!
This from someone calling themselves "gift-of-God?" Gimmie a break. :rolleyes:

Eutrusca shows his true colors once again. Good going, in all your years learning how to treat others with respect, you still fail to be respectful yourself despite all your ramblings about how you grew up in a time when people knew how to treat each other.
Yeah, that nassy ole truth thang hurts, don't it. Heh! :D

This from someone calling themselves "gift-of-God?" Gimmie a break. :rolleyes:

Oh, I see. My screen name somehow makes your generalisation all right. Or is it that my screen name immediately disqualifies me from pointing out your errors in logic?:D

Some things are covered under public support. Others are not.

For instance, suppose there were two things under consideration: The success of the president, and whether or not women should be allowed to vote.

You might look to the people for an opinion on the president. However, women being allowed to vote is a civil rights issue. It is Constitutionally mandated, no matter what the majority may say. Thus, even if a majority wanted to end women's suffrage, it wouldn't matter, as it would be unConstitutional to do so.

This is the same thing. It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in schools. Thus, majority opinion means nothing.

I appreciate the response, but this doesn't quite do it for me. If there were some "constitution" that could tell us what a good president is (and be accurate), would it then be preferable to have a "constitutionally" elected present, even if the people were against it?

Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

they do? i thought they cited those as evidence that the kool-aid is wearing off of everyone but the most delusional.

Yeah, that nassy ole truth thang hurts, don't it. Heh! :D

No I just feel bad for your inability to practice what you preach.

Ok before I see another post discussing prayer in schools or teaching of creationism I would like to see a full posting of the Establishment clause. I happen to think that most people havn't read it and studied it and therefore assume it says "separation of church and state" which is far from the truth. The United States is about freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. So I'd like to see some citations from relevent sources if you're going to make assertions like you have.

As for how democrats can use public opinion to call Bush a poor president and not believe that creationism should be taught in schools despite the public opinion, there is a simple answer. The position of president is meant to represent the people electing him/her and therefore the amount of support that person has allow shows how representative they are of the people in their respective nation. Low public opinion means low representation and therefore a president not doing his job (whether it is a president's job to do what he/she think is best or to do what the people want is a whole different debate). However, teaching creationism in schools is not something elected or representative, it is a policy decision. Therefore the believe in it being good or bad is purely personal opinion. Therefore no matter how many people are opposed or in favor of it there will always be others with good reasons to oppose the other side.

I appreciate the response, but this doesn't quite do it for me. If there were some "constitution" that could tell us what a good president is (and be accurate), would it then be preferable to have a "constitutionally" elected present, even if the people were against it?

It wouldn't be the same system of government any more then - it would be a dictatorship, so no.

The representatives of this country are supposed to be just that - representatives. They are supposed to represent the views of the people, because that is what they have been elected to do. The Constitution provides some limits as to just what powers they have. Many of those limits are aimed at preventing a tyrrany of the majority and preserving civil rights.

I think our system of government works pretty well. It basically comes down to, "Do what the most people want, so long as it doesn't hurt the rest of them."

But this is not the entire point of my post. It is this: Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Many democrats are also against creationism in schools, but don't address the public support for it. So how does a democrat who puts relevance in public opinion of Bush, respond to public opion that supports creationism?

Congratulations, you have discovered that most Americans probably don't fit perfectly into Democrat and Republican stereotypes.

I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.
You must be confused between right wingers and leftists. Leftists support democracy; right-wingers support heirarchy.

This from someone calling themselves "gift-of-God?" Gimmie a break. :rolleyes:
That's an ad hominem attack.

Yeah, that nassy ole truth thang hurts, don't it. Heh! :D
Funny how all people who use generalisations, especially racists, back up their claims by saying that it's "the truth" and nothing more.

The United States is about freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

It is impossible to have the former without the latter.

I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.
Riight..

Since when was authoritarian crap a leftwing trait?

Incidentially, if righties are like you, then yes. We by & large are smarter. Don't worry though. One lefty trait is that we don't hold people's lack of intellect against them. Unless they try to run our lives.

I don't see the correlation between the poll and Bush's approval rating. Just because they happen to agree on two points (related points, mind you), you assume that Bush and 64% of Americans are on the same page about everything. Simply untrue. It is possible to support creation and believe religion is under attack without supporting Bush on education, Iraq, whatever else. This is mere correlation, nothing more.

The issue is whether religion is under attack in America. Let's talk about it. Now, what religion does that refer to? Islam? Christianity? Both are under attack by some people in America. That's a consequence of free speech.

OK students, please tell me what is wrong with fundemental post-modern christians.

OK students, please tell me what is wrong with fundemental post-modern christians.
They exist?

I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.

or perhaps it's because matters of fact don't have their truthiness voted on. we can vote on whether or not we have science classes, but we can't vote on what the current scientific explanations are. we could hold a vote on whether to talk about the weather, but we can't vote to declare the sky green with pink polka dots.

Freedom of speech prohibits freedom from religion. What freedom of religion means is the right the practice your own religion (or lack thereof). Freedom from religion would be the right to not have to be exposed to any religion that you don't want to be exposed to and thats simple absurd and would violate freedom of religion. Personally, I'm an atheist and never say "under god" when I'm in a pledge situation, however if people want to say it then they should be allowed to. Since I don't believe in god should I have the right to never hear about it? No of course not. But do I have the right to not believe in god? Yes of course.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4830_90.htm


(graph (http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/poll_files/frame.htm#slide0002.htm))

Also, 56% favor teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution.

But this is not the entire point of my post. It is this: Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Many democrats are also against creationism in schools, but don't address the public support for it. So how does a democrat who puts relevance in public opinion of Bush, respond to public opion that supports creationism?

*** PLEASE do not get into the actual subjects of creationism/evolutionism or Bush is great/Bush sucks..

Because the Polling Public is full of complete idiots. And those idiots are the ones who tend to answer the polls. The smart people have better things to do then answer stupid polling questions. So you get the moronic, self Rightious, Religious maniacs who answer the polls.

In truth what's happening is that Religion is losing it's power in the Government, and they're not happy about that. (Boo hoo, your Rep saviors failed you? They didn't save you from the EBIL gays, they didn't save that brain less woman, they won't let you teach Diet Creationism in schools, oh boo hoo hoo.)

If polling was mandatory you'd see a different story.

Freedom of speech prohibits freedom from religion.

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech does not apply to government actions.

What freedom of religion means is the right the practice your own religion (or lack thereof). Freedom from religion would be the right to not have to be exposed to any religion that you don't want to be exposed to and thats simple absurd and would violate freedom of religion.

Freedom from religion does not mean "freedom not to be exposed to religion". You are setting up a wonderful strawbaby, but that isn't what it means. It means "freedom from being forced into any religion, including paying for any religion."

Edit: If someone is speaking about religion, you have the freedom - the right - to walk away and stop listening. If your government, on the other hand, is teaching/supporting it, you are being forced to pay for that endorsement.

Personally, I'm an atheist and never say "under god" when I'm in a pledge situation, however if people want to say it then they should be allowed to.

If people want to say it, they should be allowed to, but it should not be enshrined in our government, especially since that line was specifically added in an attempt to discriminate against atheists.

Since I don't believe in god should I have the right to never hear about it?

No, but you have the right not to have to pay for it, and not to have it enshrined in your government.

It wouldn't be the same system of government any more then - it would be a dictatorship, so no.
A dictatorship that is always right. Isn't a constitution a kind of (accurate) dictatorship over our rights?

The representatives of this country are supposed to be just that - representatives. They are supposed to represent the views of the people, because that is what they have been elected to do. The Constitution provides some limits as to just what powers they have. Many of those limits are aimed at preventing a tyrrany of the majority and preserving civil rights.

So because they are representatives, they are supposed to represent, not necissary to be right. Then the best representatives are those with the highest approval ratings, not necessarily the ones who do the best jobs? (not saying I disagree here)

A dictatorship that is always right.

No such thing.

Isn't a constitution a kind of (accurate) dictatorship over our rights?

No, it isn't. Last I checked, we can change the Constitution if we feel it to be necessary.

So because they are representatives, they are supposed to represent, not necissary to be right.

Explain how we would measure this objective "rightness". If you can figure out a way, then they can be there to be right. Otherwise, they are there to represent.

Then the best representatives are those with the highest approval ratings, not necessarily the ones who do the best jobs? (not saying I disagree here)

In this case, the job is to represent. Thus, the best representatives are those who represent the people the best - doing the best job at what they were elected for. Generally (although you never know), approval ratings are going to coincide with representation.

Congratulations, you have discovered that most Americans probably don't fit perfectly into Democrat and Republican stereotypes.

Not necessary. Are you so sure I was totally unconsciouss of any deviation from the stereotypes and that the only reason I could possibly post this was because of some confusion?

And unless your stereotype is that all democrats or republicans always justify their position in terms of public support, there is nothing in my original post that would really suggest that, far as I can see. So far as the issues are concerned (not the method in which a certain party refers to public opinion) the two camps (in this discussion) remain characterized according to their respective stereotypes.

No such thing.
This would toss its relevance out the window, but we can still talk about it.

No, it isn't. Last I checked, we can change the Constitution if we feel it to be necessary.
True. So going back to the original post, could public opinion merit a change to the constitution?

Explain how we would measure this objective "rightness". If you can figure out a way, then they can be there to be right. Otherwise, they are there to represent.
I have no idea how we'd measure it.

In this case, the job is to represent. Thus, the best representatives are those who represent the people the best - doing the best job at what they were elected for. Generally (although you never know), approval ratings are going to coincide with representation.
We have it winning by practicality, but not necessarily winning as an ideal. Far enough for me, though, as it wasn't even the main point this thread started with, just kind of ended up here.

True. So going back to the original post, could public opinion merit a change to the constitution?

That's a hard one. It could, and it has. Would it always? I don't think so. I can imagine the situation in which 3/4 of both houses and 3/4 of the states approved of something that was truly trampling human rights...

Then again, I like to be the optimist who thinks we're actually going in the right direction on those issues, and not regressing...

I have no idea how we'd measure it.

And that's the problem. This is why we have to go with the best we can. Human beings are not infallible, but we can try our best.

Well... Religion is being questioned more and more these days. While I feel that's a beneficial state of affairs, I can see where some people would see it as an attack; heck, any insistance that someone needs to change in some way due to a personal failing can be perceived as an attack.

Example: You know, maybe you guys are putting too much into this Separation dealy. If you have a state-recognised Church, it could naturally moderate its behaviour and attitudes and thus apply a moderation effect on the religious community as a whole. It worked with the Church of England.

If you were so inclined, you could assume that was an attack on the American policy of Separation of Church and State. Similarly with religion, any suggestion that another way might be better could be perceived as an assault on the object religion.

I don't see the correlation between the poll and Bush's approval rating. Just because they happen to agree on two points (related points, mind you), you assume that Bush and 64% of Americans are on the same page about everything. Simply untrue. It is possible to support creation and believe religion is under attack without supporting Bush on education, Iraq, whatever else. This is mere correlation, nothing more.

I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't mean to assume that Bush is in exact agreement with 64% of people, nor do I have to make that assumption in order for my question to be relevant. I wasn't trying to argue for whatever it is you are responding to.

Because the Polling Public is full of complete idiots. And those idiots are the ones who tend to answer the polls. The smart people have better things to do then answer stupid polling questions. So you get the moronic, self Rightious, Religious maniacs who answer the polls.

In truth what's happening is that Religion is losing it's power in the Government, and they're not happy about that. (Boo hoo, your Rep saviors failed you? They didn't save you from the EBIL gays, they didn't save that brain less woman, they won't let you teach Diet Creationism in schools, oh boo hoo hoo.)

If polling was mandatory you'd see a different story.

Really? This is a new idea that I don't think you can prove. And if you were speaking to me, I'm actually not a Bush supporter, so you know.

Maybe religion in the US is under "attack" because it attacks itself:

A president who states, that his politics is also due to a "mission from god" this aggressive makes me feel uneasy about his ability to separate religion and politics.
States who put "Intelligent Design" into schools alongside science (as far as I know it has to be teached here and there together with the scientifical evolution theory and not on its own in Religion or Philosophy or whatever) make me wonder if they understood that science is not about making assumptions that can never in any possible way ever be falsified.

So, it rather looks like religion is forced on everybody in these cases.

Riight..

Since when was authoritarian crap a leftwing trait?

Incidentially, if righties are like you, then yes. We by & large are smarter. Don't worry though. One lefty trait is that we don't hold people's lack of intellect against them. Unless they try to run our lives.
Several things you need to consider:

1. I never indicated it was a leftie exclusive.

2. I'm not a "rightie."

3. I'm obviously one hell of a lot more intelligent that you can ever hope to be.

Oh yeah! And ...

4. Thanks for proving my point. :D

Hope that helps. :D

Several things you need to consider:

1. I never indicated it was a leftie exclusive.You mean you never explicitly stated it was a leftwing-only thing. But don't worry, I doubt anyone would get the impression that you meant the rightwing is authoritarian as well.2. I'm not a "rightie."And I'm a 300 foot tall talking squirrel ;)3. I'm obviously one hell of a lot more intelligent that you can ever hope to be.

Oh yeah! And ...

4. Thanks for proving my point. :D

Hope that helps. :DNo, thank you ;)

The United States is about freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.
That is the exact opposite of what the Establishment Clause says. The First Amendment says that government (which includes state schools) must be free from religion (it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), although it may not prohibit the free exercise of religion by citizens.

This message has been deleted by Sumamba Buwhan. Reason: decided to be nice instead =oP
Awww! Why change a practice of such long standing??? :p

And I'm a 300 foot tall talking squirrel
Well, that would explain several things. :)

Well, that would explain several things. :)
Somehow I get the feeling you're alluding to something besides my fondness of nuts?

Awww! Why change a practice of such long standing??? :p


because I fear for your blood pressure and I like having you around :fluffle:

shows me that the elders (which we are supposed to be respecting for their wisdom) have no frakkin' clue what they are talking about, just like the rest of us

because I fear for your blood pressure and I like having you around :fluffle:

shows me that the elders (which we are supposed to be respecting for their wisdom) have no frakkin' clue what they are talking about, just like the rest of us
ROFLMAO!

Awwww! I'm so flattered! Shucks! :fluffle:

:D

Several things you need to consider:

1. I never indicated it was a leftie exclusive.

2. I'm not a "rightie."

3. I'm obviously one hell of a lot more intelligent that you can ever hope to be.

Oh yeah! And ...

4. Thanks for proving my point. :D

Hope that helps. :D


Dear sir, Ad Hominem, or "against the man", is an unjustified way of attacking anyone. Just because you believe someone is less intelligetn doesn't make it so. There is no empirical case for it. Please, you two, be nice and cease this childish fight.

On topic, public opinion (in our electoral college system) means next to nothing. Futhermore, the representatives of the people are elected for a reason. It's because they can gain enough of a majority in the individual states that he/she can win as a minority president. Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Adams, and many others were elected by a minority becasue they got the populous states.

Basically, the US cannot function with an abusive majority. A large and vocal enough minority can do great things.

So... Since this topic seems dead, why don't we debate whether old people actually deserve respect?

In my opinion, it's wrong to respect a demographic. The only execption I can think of is veterans.

Dear sir, Ad Hominem, or "against the man", is an unjustified way of attacking anyone. Just because you believe someone is less intelligetn doesn't make it so. There is no empirical case for it. Please, you two, be nice and cease this childish fight.
LOL! Oh boy. Nothing I love better than being lectured by a n00b! :D

BTW ... you might want to read the post to which I responded. I was not the first to bring up the "intelligence" issue. :p

Maybe we need to define terms.

Religion under attack=lawsuits causing removal of all displays of or references to religion in public (including crosses put up as war memorials); forbidding children from taking Bibles to school to be read on their free time; changing "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays"; forbidding religious organizations from renting or using public venues, such as parks and school rooms, while allowing other non-religious organizations to continue to rent or use same; searching every seal of every town, city, county, state in USA for even the tiniest representation of a cross in order to remove it, while ignoring giant representations of pagan gods/goddesses (L.A. County seal-case in point, largest item on seal was the goddess Pomona, smallest thing was a tiny cross that no one knew was there until the ACLU threatened a lawsuit if it was not removed, which celebrated the fact that Catholic missions were instrumental in the formation of the county); etc, etc, etc...

Leftist Totalitarianism=using judges to make laws to have their agendas enforced when democratic means fail (CA majority votes to have state constitutional marriage amendment, lefties go to court to overturn the will of the people), or passing laws to forbid such things as smoking outdoors, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving a car without using a seatbelt, using perfume or deodorant (see Carmel, CA), passing laws to regulate food consumption (no more snacks at school, soon to regulate portion size at restaurants), all under the guise of protecting the public health, because leftists know better than the rest of us what to do, because their leaders tell them so.

"Meat's meat, and a man's gotta eat!" No tofurkey for me!:mp5:

Actually good ol abe was incredibly unpopular and only really won the election because well, the other party was fighting a just and legal war to fight for their right to as the constitution clearly states, leave the Union at any time, and since Lincoln had no real opposition well he won lol.

Now as for religion. Well lets look at all the creationist stories of some majour religions lets look at say greco-roman first

There was nothing, then there was gaia the earth and Saturn the sky, Saturn rapes Gaia makes the titans and so on and so on

Judaeo christians [islam included] god laboured for 7 days, said let their be light placed animals and all that yadda yadda

Buddhists..honestly dont care what they believe, no offense but uhh Sidharta Gautoma [buddha] left his wife and infant child to ponder the meaning of the universe for 20 years under a tree..what the hell makes him so wise what did he figure out, oh nothing matters..so the guy did nothing for 20 years and based a religion on it

Ancient cimmerians [circa 20000 BC]
The planet Enyo carrying the first advanced [human like] forms of life did smash through the solar system 4 billion years ago careening in to the earth, this destroyed those that lived here but left those of the planet enyo to rebuild life here, the planet enyo was flung to the distant reaches of the solar system and lays there still, its original inhabitants alive and well, plotting for revenge against us [this is not a joke, the ancient cimmerians believed this, they even gave numerical timeline of 4 billion years before which is why its the only credible one and they still call the aliens or what not gods. ]

Ancient savage sacrifice cults [mayans,Aztecs and other deranged primitives]
the earth was made from the blood of the gods in fighting, thusly we must sacrifice to said gods to keep it going, the gods destroy the world and rebuild it every 5000 years [hence the 2012 world end faerie tale, they simply didnt make the new calander before poor climate, human sacrifice and corrupt nobility forced most south american empires to collapse after a few years]

Now lets compare this with the science
5 billion years ago earth started to cool, we can see evidence of this and the age in the bedrock, life evolved from amino acids forming more and more complex life as earths climate changed, eventually evolving to animals and then us humans [its amazing people can look at a monkey and simply cant see how we could be related lol] now the fact is we can make amino acids almost turn in to life in laboratories and we can see evolution at work in laboratories, the only reason Evolution is theory and not fact is because well Science is under attack from the church, always has been, they tried to commit darwin, they try to stop any advancement that takes power from them.

once the bible becomes just a book written 5000 years ago by people who could barely understand the wheel let alone complex natural rythms, or even the night sky, the churches lose power, so of course the church will try as hard as it can to play victim. Sorry its not the church under attack inthe states, its secular society.

oh and those state challenges to religion and the like, they are part of the legal code and constitution, seperation of chruch and state my friends its a sad thing but until you become the UTCSA [united theocratic christan states of america] then stop bitching about not being able to break one law when you sit there and stifle legitimate research because its "morally wrong"
when its only wrong to a religious stand point of god wants us to get sick.

I am very secular and i believe in god and guess what...God doesnt give humans useless organs, or useless thoughts. for one big myth, we actually use 100% of our brains, its impossible not to we would need to be in a coma. Second, if wee can think of it we were meant to use it, nukes have good uses for instance, deflecting asteroids, nuclear power, Genetic Engineering is the same, God granted us the intelligence to figure it out.

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech does not apply to government actions.



Freedom from religion does not mean "freedom not to be exposed to religion". You are setting up a wonderful strawbaby, but that isn't what it means. It means "freedom from being forced into any religion, including paying for any religion."

Edit: If someone is speaking about religion, you have the freedom - the right - to walk away and stop listening. If your government, on the other hand, is teaching/supporting it, you are being forced to pay for that endorsement.



If people want to say it, they should be allowed to, but it should not be enshrined in our government, especially since that line was specifically added in an attempt to discriminate against atheists.



No, but you have the right not to have to pay for it, and not to have it enshrined in your government.

Sometimes, even people as different as Dem and myself can agree completely. What part of public funds=no fucking religion don't these people understand? It's a contract the government makes with us.
Taxes don't fund anything that isn't completely devoid of religious content. Period. Public schools? If I were a teacher in a public institution, would you want me to teach your children Mahayana Tibetan occultism while I'm on the fucking job? It's 2005. Catch up a little.
Let's face it, the majority of V.P.J. (Very Public Jesus) supporters aren't exactly pro-taxes. If they were innocent of hypocrisy, they'd send their kids to a private school that would instill their brand of chosen morality.
In other words, they should put their money where their mouths are, or start supplementing that child's public school education with extracurricular bible study.

This is the same thing. It is unconstitutional to teach Creationism in schools. Thus, majority opinion means nothing.

I dont think thats accurate. If you teach it as "X, Y and Z is wrong with the current model, so what is the answer? God did it" then yes thats fair. If however you teach "There is one model, however it has X, Y and Z yet to fully explain" then it isnt. I think the issue people have is teaching evolution like its completly solid and concrete fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

...And I'll bet there's a certain percentage of people who believe religion deserves it, what with being so uhh... flirtatious and all.

They were clearly asking it for it.

If Americans want to learn creationism instead of science, fine, but it's their loss, really.

No, it doesn't. Freedom of speech does not apply to government actions.

Why not?


Freedom from religion does not mean "freedom not to be exposed to religion". You are setting up a wonderful strawbaby, but that isn't what it means. It means "freedom from being forced into any religion, including paying for any religion."

What this amounts to is "I dont want my tax money paid on something I dont like". So if your a pacifist, should you not pay tax on the grounds that the money may go towards manufacturing a Warrior Tank?


Edit: If someone is speaking about religion, you have the freedom - the right - to walk away and stop listening. If your government, on the other hand, is teaching/supporting it, you are being forced to pay for that endorsement.

See above


No, but you have the right not to have to pay for it, and not to have it enshrined in your government.

I agree about the not enshirned in government, but not in the right to pay for it part. You know in Britain we have a far more relaxed attitude to this problem. If any one relgion is assited by the government (IE a grant given to help build a chuch etc) then all religions are.

I dont think thats accurate. If you teach it as "X, Y and Z is wrong with the current model, so what is the answer? God did it" then yes thats fair. If however you teach "There is one model, however it has X, Y and Z yet to fully explain" then it isnt. I think the issue people have is teaching evolution like its completly solid and concrete fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
You're trying to argue the point as you frame it. Fundamentalist Christians illustrate the failure of the bible as a historic or scientific document every time they open their mouths without realizing it.
You're assuming that evolution is a "theory" as in the way we talk about theories in everyday life. If evolution is "just" a theory and it's necessary to point out its faults, we should also have to point out that gravity is a theory too, and may be wrong. We could go on all day like this because all science is potentially faulty, insomuch as we never "know it all". Something only graduates to the level of scientific theory once there's enough empirical evidence supporting it.

It's not a theory like Sherlock Holmes had while guessing who fucking did it.

In many ways, I can agree that we should not indoctrinate children at public schools with any religion, nor should we use public funds to promote religion. We have to teach people about religion. A world history class might say stuff about what Jews believe in, Muslims, Budhists, Christians, etc. It just cannot endorse them.

However, I personally think that those who want to remove "under God" from our pledge of allegience are just wasting time. Just make saying "under God" optional (alread is, far as I know). There, problem solved, let's find other ways to waste our tax dollars. Our national anthem has "in God we trust," let's get the lawsuits goin' so we can waste tax money....

I can't speak to the issue of Democrats on this, but where most leftists are concerned, they wouldn't even address the issue at all. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are smarter than the rest of us and have such a much better grip on how our lives should be run than we do that they can safely disregard public opinon on anything they choose.
Wow this is amazingly identical to what we democrats think of you "rightists"
Its amazing how the far sides of both issues act in such a simmilar manner yet people always view their side as that doing it less so

...And I'll bet there's a certain percentage of people who believe religion deserves it, what with being so uhh... flirtatious and all.

They were clearly asking it for it.
"religion" (my priest) molested me ... I feel the right to molest the religion back :p

"religion" (my priest) molested me ... I feel the right to molest the religion back :p
It's funny, I'd tried working in a deliberate snub of kiddy-diddling priests in the first mental draft of that last bit, but I couldn't fit it in properly.

Sorry 'bout that. I'll try harder next time.

It's funny, I'd tried working in a deliberate snub of kiddy-diddling priests in the first mental draft of that last bit, but I couldn't fit it in properly.

Sorry 'bout that. I'll try harder next time.
Lol thats alright my last one got it for ya :fluffle:

Religion under attack=lawsuits causing removal of all displays of or references to religion in public (including crosses put up as war memorials);

You mean not wanting the government to establish government-sanctioned religion (you know, since the 1st Amendment says they can't) is an attack on religion?

forbidding children from taking Bibles to school to be read on their free time;

I have seen no evidence that anyone is doing this.

changing "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays";

Christmas is hardly the only holiday around this time of year, you know. If you hate Jews and Muslims and Wiccans and African-Americans and others so much that you can't respect the fact that they also have something to celebrate, I'd say that's your problem.

forbidding religious organizations from renting or using public venues,

Renting? No. Using for free? Yes, unless everyone can equally use them for free.

Leftist Totalitarianism=using judges to make laws to have their agendas enforced when democratic means fail (CA majority votes to have state constitutional marriage amendment, lefties go to court to overturn the will of the people),

Yeah. I guess we shouldn't have allowed Brown v. Board either.

I dont think thats accurate.

Then you are wrong. Teaching Creationism = establishing a state-sponsored religion = breaking the 1st Amendment.

If you teach it as "X, Y and Z is wrong with the current model, so what is the answer? God did it" then yes thats fair.

Not in science, which cannot invoke an untestable hypothesis like God for anything.

If however you teach "There is one model, however it has X, Y and Z yet to fully explain" then it isnt.

That's how science works, my dear. If you don't like it, lobby to have all science taken out of schools.

I think the issue people have is teaching evolution like its completly solid and concrete fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

No one is teaching it that way at all. Every middle and high school textbook includes a discussion of exactly what a theory is. If students don't learn it, it's their own fault.

Why not?

Because the government is subject to all of the Amendments, including the 1st. The government can't say, "We really like Christianity. We don't like Islam," because that would be establishing a government-sanctioned religion.

What this amounts to is "I dont want my tax money paid on something I dont like".

Wrong. What it amounts to is, "I don't want my tax money spent in a way that the Constitution expressl forbids it being spent. My government cannot establish a religion. Spending tax money on a religion is establishing a religion. Thus, my government cannot spend tax money on a religion."

The government cannot force religion upon you. It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Look it up.

I agree about the not enshirned in government, but not in the right to pay for it part.

They are one and the same. If the government pays for religion, then that religion is enshrined in government.

You know in Britain we have a far more relaxed attitude to this problem. If any one relgion is assited by the government (IE a grant given to help build a chuch etc) then all religions are.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

You honestly think it is possible to give equal amounts of money to every single religion? When was the last time your government gave an equal amount of money to Wicca as they do to Christianity? Or Satanism? Or Bahai?

Sixty-four percent of the American people believe that religion is "under attack,"

a national poll of 800 American adults

What they actually mean is 64% of 0.00027% of the American people believe that.

MY OPINION IS NOT A STATISTIC. Nor is that of over half of the US population.

What they actually mean is 64% of 0.00027% of the American people believe that.

MY OPINION IS NOT A STATISTIC. Nor is that of over half of the US population.

I agree that 800 people is a small sample size.

However, if you have to interview every single American personally to find out anything about trends in the opinions of Americans, we'll never find anything out.

If I have to experiment on every human smooth muscle cell out there in order to determine how they react to stimuli, I'll never get done. Instead, I take a representative sample.

And so on......

I agree that 800 people is a small sample size.

However, if you have to interview every single American personally to find out anything about trends in the opinions of Americans, we'll never find anything out.

Yeah, but maybe I'm a bit skeptical about the ADL "finding anything out" about America in the first place.


If I have to experiment on every human smooth muscle cell out there in order to determine how they react to stimuli, I'll never get done. Instead, I take a representative sample.

And so on......

Of course, a human being's religious/philosophical/political beliefs and opinions are just a tad less straightforward than biochemical reactions to stimuli...

What they actually mean is 64% of 0.00027% of the American people believe that.

MY OPINION IS NOT A STATISTIC. Nor is that of over half of the US population.
That leads to a sampling error of roughly 3.5 percent (using a total us pop of 300 mil)

Thats not all that bad ... not for a population survey, usualy the samples are around a thousand but as long as the survey is done right its not outragous

Of course, a human being's religious/philosophical/political beliefs and opinions are just a tad less straightforward than biochemical reactions to stimuli...

And because of that, you need a larger percentage sample size to get anything for sure. I could use a few isolations of cells from a few human beings and get useful results. To talk about beliefs, you need a much, much, larger sample size. But you still don't need to talk to every single person in the group. And the sample size needed depends on exactly what group you are looking at, and what you are asking about.

To talk about beliefs, you need a much, much, larger sample size. But you still don't need to talk to every single person in the group.

Well, I disagree. People are individuals, that's why you don't just (for example) assume that because statistically, black men are more likely to be convicted of a rape, walk up to some black guy and go "Hey! How'd the rape trial go?" If you don't treat everyone as individuals you wind up unwittingly stereotyping anyone whose voice you assume you don't need to listen to, to hear.

What they actually mean is 64% of 0.00027% of the American people believe that.

MY OPINION IS NOT A STATISTIC. Nor is that of over half of the US population.
Surely you have some vague understanding that a small random sample does a surprisingly good job of accurately representing the rest of the country?

For example, a 2002 survey (http://www.pollingreport.com/ncpp1.htm) showed that polling organizations for 159 candidates accross the country only had a margin of 2.4% error when compared to the real results.

It's too bad they didn't do another survey to determine if people feel they are being attacked by religion. I'd guess the numbers would come out to be the same.

Seems to me that the flaw is in the question itself. Is religion under attack? Sure. Michael Newdow attacks it every single day. The real question is "is religion in any danger of being rubbed out any time soon," and the obvious answer is no (well, obvious to everyone but those crazed fundamentalists who think that the Keebler Elf is working hand in hand with the gargoyles to control our minds through the power of Elvis).

Well, I disagree. People are individuals, that's why you don't just (for example) assume that because statistically, black men are more likely to be convicted of a rape, walk up to some black guy and go "Hey! How'd the rape trial go?" If you don't treat everyone as individuals you wind up unwittingly stereotyping anyone whose voice you assume you don't need to listen to, to hear.

The problem here is that, as usual, you are assuming that the method = people's misuse of it. A person properly using statistics would never fail to treat people as individuals. The only people who would do it are the ones who are already bigots looking for an excuse.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4830_90.htm


(graph (http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/poll_files/frame.htm#slide0002.htm))

Also, 56% favor teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution.

But this is not the entire point of my post. It is this: Many democrats cite Bush's falling approval ratings as support for their argument of how bad a president he is.

Many democrats are also against creationism in schools, but don't address the public support for it. So how does a democrat who puts relevance in public opinion of Bush, respond to public opion that supports creationism?

*** PLEASE do not get into the actual subjects of creationism/evolutionism or Bush is great/Bush sucks..

You state that by wanting these things in schools etc you are unpatriotic, after all, tthe founding fathers stipulated something called "seperation of church & state".

All those in Jesusland are unpatriotic!

2. I'm not a "rightie."

Then why do you never criticise right-wing people? I have watched your posts since you began in late 2004 (I'm not a new user) and your attacks have been disproportionately aimed at leftists.