They're at it again [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : They're at it again


Gunhaver
06-16-2012, 14:25
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kansas-headed-debate-evolution-16510497#.T9zoI7VYuSp

Just Kansas being Kansas. It's probably no coincidence that this state is home to the WBC.

muscogee
06-16-2012, 16:18
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kansas-headed-debate-evolution-16510497#.T9zoI7VYuSp

Just Kansas being Kansas. It's probably no coincidence that this state is home to the WBC.

That's the same state where the Wizard of Oz began and ended.

hogfish
06-16-2012, 19:30
When I hear about those special schools in Saudi (Madrases?), I'm not surprised. I'm starting to not be surprised by this kind of thing here.

:sigh:

steveksux
06-17-2012, 00:43
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kansas-headed-debate-evolution-16510497#.T9zoI7VYuSp

Just Kansas being Kansas. It's probably no coincidence that this state is home to the WBC.Hey, at least they're not trying to impose Sharia! :rofl:

Randy

High-Gear
06-17-2012, 07:53
I was at one of the Smithsonian museums a few years ago and overheard people at an exibit ridiculing Kansans for the previous bout of this stupidity. I stepped in, introduced myself as a socially liberal, atheistic, pro gay marriage, pro science, Kansan and asked them to please not associate all of the citizens of our state with what they hear in the news.

I am saddened that we will have to endure this embarassment once again.

packsaddle
06-18-2012, 09:17
awwww, poor wittle materiawists.

Syclone538
06-18-2012, 09:54
...
Willard said the draft embraces naturalism and secular humanism, which precludes God or another supreme being in considering how the universe works. He said he intends to raise the issue Tuesday.

"That's going to be very problematic," Willard told The Associated Press in an interview. "They are preferring one religious position over another."
...

Ok, not religion = religion is a political/legal tactic. That explains some otherwise absurd posts here in GTRI.

Gunhaver
06-18-2012, 11:10
Ok, not religion = religion is a political/legal tactic. That explains some otherwise absurd posts here in GTRI.

Yes, they can't understand the concept of neutrality or get over the thought process of, not supporting their religion=against their religion. Therefore if someone refuses to teach their religion in a public school then it's unfair because they teach the opposite view which is anything not their religion.

Bren
06-18-2012, 12:20
Hey, at least they're not trying to impose Sharia! :rofl:

Randy

They'd love to and they never stop trying. Sharia is no more than having religious values enforced by government authority, but using an Arabic word to make it seem different from what the people who criticize Sharia loudly from one side of their mouth are supporting from the other side. Churches, especially christian churches, are constantly campaigning for it here. In fact, we have quite a bit of it, already.

muscogee
06-18-2012, 14:05
They'd love to and they never stop trying. Sharia is no more than having religious values enforced by government authority, but using an Arabic word to make it seem different from what the people who criticize Sharia loudly from one side of their mouth are supporting from the other side. Churches, especially christian churches, are constantly campaigning for it here. In fact, we have quite a bit of it, already.

Good point, even though most churches will deny it.

Kentak
06-18-2012, 17:22
Since the population of Kansas is only about 3 million, the damage to the national IQ will be limited.

steveksux
06-18-2012, 18:55
They'd love to and they never stop trying. Sharia is no more than having religious values enforced by government authority, but using an Arabic word to make it seem different from what the people who criticize Sharia loudly from one side of their mouth are supporting from the other side. Churches, especially christian churches, are constantly campaigning for it here. In fact, we have quite a bit of it, already.I think you got the joke without realizing I was making the same joke... Basically, you're preaching to the choir.... Oh wait...

Its been that way so long you don't even notice, and think its always been that way. Blue laws. And take "Under God" in the Pledge and on the money, only been there since the 1950's. People seem like they think that proves the country was founded on Christianity...

Randy

Syclone538
06-18-2012, 21:41
It gets repeated a lot, but isn't exactly accurate. I believe is was first put on paper money in the 50's.

...
The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
...
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

Norske
06-19-2012, 08:35
They'd love to and they never stop trying. Sharia is no more than having religious values enforced by government authority, but using an Arabic word to make it seem different from what the people who criticize Sharia loudly from one side of their mouth are supporting from the other side. Churches, especially christian churches, are constantly campaigning for it here. In fact, we have quite a bit of it, already.

Organized Religion itself was the first form of what we now tend to think of as "Government".

Religion was government and government was religion.

Religious leaders were government leaders and vice versa.

And was so for pretty much most of the last 10,000 years, world wide, until relatively recently.

The final split between Religion and Government started within just the last 1,000 years or so and was probably pretty much completed with the Constitution of the US and the 1st Amendment thereto.

Which pretty much shut Organized Religion out of it's historical role of making law, interpreting law, and in particular, enforcing the laws it made and interprets.

Nor can it make "intelligent design" a matter of Law.

Today in the USA, Religion has ceremonial and advisory roles, but has no actual governmental authority. The Inquisition can no longer send priests out to foribly convert Jews to Christianity or kill them trying, and such.

This is the very crux of our continuing problems with Islam. :dunno:

Islam views the split between religion and government to literally be the "devils work" and that they have an Allah-given religious duty to bring all of mankind back under a single Theocratic Religious/Governmental System. :upeyes:

Theirs. :steamed:

So, they hijack airliners and slam them into Manhattan skyscrapers in pursuit of their religious duty, as they see it.

Our best defense against Islamic violence is to insist on Secular Government, with respect for individual liberty including respect for an individual's right to his or her own religious beliefs, with no secular authority left in the hands of any religious group whatsoever.

Including Islamic lands! ALL Islamic lands. Yes, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, all of them.

Deprived of secular authority, any religion can only expand by non-violent means. :upeyes:

Which is as it should be. :dunno:

Geko45
06-19-2012, 08:54
Islam views the split between religion and government to literally be the "devils work" and that they have an Allah-given religious duty to bring all of mankind back under a single Theocratic Religious/Governmental System. :upeyes:

Theirs. :steamed:

So, they hijack airliners and slam them into Manhattan skyscrapers in pursuit of their religious duty, as they see it.

In the other thread, it was said that without a belief system an athiest has no moral compass and is capable of anything. As you have so eloquently pointed out, having a belief system can also be used to justify anything.

Norske
06-19-2012, 14:55
In the other thread, it was said that without a belief system an athiest has no moral compass and is capable of anything. As you have so eloquently pointed out, having a belief system can also be used to justify anything.

I maintain that one can be moral without any belief that morality descends from some supernatural being.

I do not see that the one must by necessity be tied to the other.

The basis of my personal morality can be summed up in four words.

No Malice (on my part). No Mercy (on my part if malice is offered to me).

Neither requires a belief system.

Of all places, JK Rowling hit it on the head in the "Harry Potter" books.

"For the Greater Good".

Evil is usually conducted in the name of some "Greater Good".

Such "Greater Good" being whatever the perpetrator deems to be the "Greater Good".

To a priest of the Inquisition, in order to save the souls of Jews, the "Greater Good" demanded that they torture those Jews to death. It was important to save the souls; their bodies were expendable.

To Hitler, "Greater Good" was Lebensraum for the Master Race requiring that the Jews, as well as other so-called Untermenschen such as the Slavs and Gypsys, be slaughtered in droves.

During the Crusades, one side yelled "Allahu Ackbar" and the other yelled "Deus Volt". Both phrases pretty much translates as "God Demands This".

And both were wrong.

Today, the "Greater Good" to some Islamics requires them to take over airliners full of screaming passengers and slam them into skyscrapers while still yelling "Allahu Ackbar".

Whereas Christians no longer yell "Deus Volt" because in the West, the separation of church and (secular) state has eliminated Religion's ability to wage war on behalf of itself.

Manklnd would be better off it we would all stop acting for the "Greater Good".

Geko45
06-19-2012, 21:07
Manklnd would be better off it we would all stop acting for the "Greater Good".

Amen!

:thumbsup: