Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, no fear of theocracy there?
In Germany? Hardly.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Link.[^] Under pressure she later back-tracked.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
Well that's one mark against. Edit --> After reading the article, it doesn't sound quite that bad. It didn't sound to me like a back-track. It sounded more to me like she hasn't really considered it. Unlike many here (and I think you are included, but I don't mean to presume), I see a lot of benefit to religion. But it should stay in church. The Creationist movement is straight from the deepest bowels of LooneyVille. And to suggest that their agenda constitutes a scientific theory is beyond ridiculous. Intelligent Design sounded good to me, until you get beyond the title and find that they are equally looney. As a religious person with a brain, I think Galileo was right when he said that when scientific observation diverges from religious interpretation, it's time to reevaluate interpretations.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Fascist dictatorship.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
That's pretty much what the title of this thread was intended to encapsulate. When I start seeing comments under news stories about the new particle collider that suggest it is going against God's will and when stem cell research is banned based on religious tenets and creationism starts creeping into education debates, I get a little worried.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
news stories about the new particle collider that suggest it is going against God's will
Hadn't heard that one. But I'm pretty sure that's not a widely held belief. I guess some people are just scared of knowledge.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Fascist dictatorship.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Totally unresponsive. A pathetic answer. You should strive to do better.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
What exactly is it I'm supposed to be responding to? JFK?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
I think you are blurring two things that can be looked at separately. It is possible to believe in a God without belonging to any organized religion. Religions whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Evangelical or Zorastianism are man-made and pretty much by definition are focused on controlling behavior. After all, the more control they exert, the better their chief priests are paid. So, for me, it is not God or a belief in Him that is worrisome - it is the willingness to accept some other man's word for what God wants to see happen here on earth. In all fairness, I would argue that the likes of Billy Graham are a major step up from the Divine Right of Kings or the elevation of someone like Mao to god-like status.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I think you are blurring two things that can be looked at separately. It is possible to believe in a God without belonging to any organized religion. Religions whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Evangelical or Zorastianism are man-made and pretty much by definition are focused on controlling behavior. After all, the more control they exert, the better their chief priests are paid. So, for me, it is not God or a belief in Him that is worrisome - it is the willingness to accept some other man's word for what God wants to see happen here on earth.
As someone who is so concerned about why things happen, why do you think this is a greater threat today than in the past? Why is the term theocracy so worrisome now but past generations of Americans hardly even concerned themselves with the prospect?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course the real irony of your response is that you seem to think that Thomas Jefferson's beliefs
Don't be silly. Jefferson lived in a far simpler time. He could propose and live by simpler answers. On the other hand, you keep claiming that the role of the Supreme Court needs to be reduced back to what you believe it was in the days of John Adams.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That we should find every letter the man ever dashed off to someone and create a shrine for it that we all worship at.
Not at all. I simply enjoy the hell out of demonstrating how little you, a self-proclaimed 'Jeffersonian' actually know about the man. It is a matter of amusement to me - nothing important; nothing I can't live without but still enjoyable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Jefferson lived in a far simpler time. He could propose and live by simpler answers. On the other hand, you keep claiming that the role of the Supreme Court needs to be reduced back to what you believe it was in the days of John Adams.
And you seem to feel that fascism is perfectly ok as long as the court is quoting from some letter Jefferson dashed off over tea one afternoon as they do it.
Oakman wrote:
I simply enjoy the hell out of demonstrating how little you, a self-proclaimed 'Jeffersonian' actually know about the man. It is a matter of amusement to me - nothing important; nothing I can't live without but still enjoyable.
Well, you are sadly mistaken if you have any notion that you are getting under my skin. I'm quite certain I am at least as well read as you on the subject. At least I am well educated enough to appreciate that all those quotes prove just the opposite of what you think they do. If we need letters thta Jefferson wrote to create a new interpretation of our constitution, than clearly those concepts were intentionally left out of the original.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
While his denomination is rather obscure, I feel less bothered by him because he really isn't promoting religion as part of his campaign strategy. For example, I don't recall him having mentioned giving creationism equal time in the classroom. Additionally, his policies regarding scientific research (stem cells, etc...) are not guided by his religious beliefs. Because of that, I view him less of a theocrat than the two on the ticket for the Republican party. I wasn't impressed by the church he attended or the controversy surrounding his pastor.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
While his denomination is rather obscure, I feel less bothered by him because he really isn't promoting religion as part of his campaign strategy. For example, I don't recall him having mentioned giving creationism equal time in the classroom.
Obama's politics could not be more closely intwined with his religion. He has repeatedly used his 'faith' as a justification for and a motivation of his desire to posses political power. Palin, or no other fundamentalits has ever done that. There are specific issues that they are motivated to oppose or support based upon their religious principles. The fact that the latter worries you, but the former does not, says it all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No he wasn't. The Nazi's never suggested he ruled by divine decree.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Ilíon wrote:
And barking moonbats *must* be barking moonbats.
Speak for yourself. Oh, you were...
Rob Graham wrote:
Speak for yourself. Oh, you were...
No, you fool (and willing tool of the leftists); I'm a "right wing-nut." The barking moonbats are the looky leftists (and these days there seem to be very few non-loony leftists) -- and who, in any pinch, you (you, personally) will stand with, rather than against.