Chuck Norris fact: Chuck Norris wants the Bible taught in public schools
posted at 2:43 pm on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Suddenly atheist Sunday school doesn’t sound so silly. Old but gold, and likely to further burnish the coveted Norris endorsement for Mike Huckabee in the eyes of social cons. Chuck Norris fact: Church and state are separate only because sticking together would make them easier targets for Chuck Norris.
Update: Speak of the devil.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It was created in 1787 and ratified by all 13 states by 1790.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 4:23 PM
He never says, but can you blame him. Would you want us just stopping by?
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 4:23 PM
When it was signed and ratified by the colonies.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
@ Vaporman87 on November 23, 2007 at 4:08
So obviously you didnt read what I said correctly. There is NO evidence the world is thousands of years old, but there is a TON of evidence the world is billions of years old. Maybe read here a little bit, the first site I found on google: http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm
muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
It’s an over-used, or incorrectly used phrase, then. The Amendment prohibits the formation or appointment of an official State Religion, or interfering in citizens’ practice of relgion. It nowhere forbids the State from having any interaction with religion. My pet-peeve with the phrase it that too many folks who haven’t actually read the Constitution have heard it so many times that they now believe it to be in there.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
You want facts about Creationism.
I will give you facts about Creationism!
It has a large cult following like the Goracle thy Oracles Global Warming has!
OK, I can’t think of any more facts about it.
That’s about it I guess.
Anybody else?
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
OMFG
@El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I didnt ask you to find ONE thing that isnt proven and show that your book has a story about it, I asked for one FACT, verifiable, PROVING ANYTHING about creationism. You apparently dont understand that disproving something about evolution, even though that is not what you have done, is not the same as proving something for creationism.
muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Also, YOU obviously have not read ANYTHING about the big bang, as no where in teh theory does it say there was “nothingness”.
muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Defense Guy
This seems pretty accurate: On September 17, 1787, members of the Constitutional Convention signed the final draft of the Constitution.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/sep17.html
Don’t they teach this in school anymore?
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Let’s start with Bible study now, but be ready for Mitt to add the Book of Mormon to the curriculum in January 2009.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 4:29 PM
That would all depend on how good, or bad, a job I thought that I did with all that I had created. I guess the conclusion is obvious.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:30 PM
They hear you Tex. They just don’t want to.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Or with Osama, your mama, Obama and the Koran?
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM
LOL, how true.
infidel4life on November 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Yes, and the law of the land in the interim was a document which contains this phrase:
Which I am sure was thrown in there for ironic purposes. I also imagine that the prayers that started every session of the Constitutional Conference were meant to indicate a complete lack of faith, and in fact the religious argumentation that was used at the time was really meant to throw us off the track.
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM
muyoso
you need to chill man. Theories are not proof. they are “theories”, a (rational) explanation for things lacking solid proof.
And I was speaking from a scientific point of view. No the big bang theory never mentions total nothingness, however it also does not explain where the bang came from let alone what the cause and effects were to make it happen. Everything comes from something. Where you lack proof in science, you cannot ethically discuss those discrepancies by omitting theories.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Or with Silky and the Book of Tort?
Or wit Huckster and the Book of Nannyism?
Or with Rudy and the Book of Sanctuary?
Or with McCain and the Book of Perpetual Surge?
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Sounds great to me!!
JellyToast on November 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
It has an audience that professors at the Discovery Institute can sell books to. It is also funded by people like Howard Ahmanson, who, along with the Christian Reconstructionists, advocates an America that is more theocratic than democratic.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I correct myself. It does give a theory on this, but it is just that, theory. We have not proven it yet.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:39 PM
MB4
What about liberals and their “perpetual pessimism?
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Gotta disagree with Chuck on this one. While, yes, people would be better off if they learned the bible in their school age days, the public school system is not the place for it.
I’d be all for bible study groups voluntarily formed by students, with a pastor or priest coming in to teach in a public school classroom as an AFTER SCHOOL activity.
But no way do I want some NEA member teaching her/his version of the Bible as part of the school curriculum.
I believe that would be unconstitutional, PLUS opening a can of worms. If they can make bible study mandatory, they can make any religion or pseudo-religion or cult teaching mandatory.
Got no problem at all with vouchers and people electing to send their children to a religious based school, (although it does scare me how many taxpayer dollars would end up going to madrassas, the Scientology School and Satan’s School for Girls.).
LegendHasIt on November 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I’m actually hoping for the Kucinich’s “Book of UFOs and Tall Hot Wives”
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
MB4 posted a quote apparently from Thomas Jefferson earlier which stated
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
In my search for quotes from the Founding Fathers on religion and God and the Bible, I came across this one from Thomas Jefferson:
Did Thomas Jefferson lose his faith after writing this and then change to believe that Christianity and the belief in God had no redeeming qualities, as stated in the quote from MB4?
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Don’t wook at me. God created them didn’t he? Ask him.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM
LOL. Let us hope that the link is accurate, considering it’s the freaking library of congress. I also should thank you, because they have an excellent section on religion in America.
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Defense Guy
It is funny. But wikipedia says basicaly the same thing, and that has been proven to be re-written history in many cases of people posting what they want, that is why I did not use it.
MB4
Just adding some balance there.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:48 PM
That’s English for “Anno Domini”. They were referencing the standard for calendar dates, which the Catholic church established and named.
Also, I’m not sure what relevance the Articles of Confederation has, given that it was superseded.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I dunno.
This is what the man said:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
- Thomas Jefferson
He was probably, in your quote, using God metaphorically.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Balance is good.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Some people are getting seriously (well, only one so far that I saw who cussed at me “OMFG”) heated on this topic.
This can be a prime example on how people do not like some theories when there is absense of absolute proof. Anything that they disagree with must be wrong. This belief alone is unscientific. It is like having an experiment with chemicals and intentionally excluding certain controls. The result ends up 100% unreliable. (Global Warming Alarmists need to heed this!)
Have a nice day. I am way overdue for lunch!
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Consider that faith in God and belief in a religion are not necessarily the same thing. Jefferson could easily hold the beliefs in both of those quotes simultaneously.
Pablo on November 23, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Seems to me that if these folks meant to set religion aside, they would not be using it’s practices. Like referencing a year in terms of its relation to Christ. They seemed to have shit-canned all the other “old” thinking, why not this?
Just meant to point out that the US did not start being a country when the Constitution was ratified. It started being a country with the Declaration of Independence. Does God make an appearance in that document? In fact, is there a document on which US law is based that does NOT mention God or religion?
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 4:58 PM
But let us not forget that christians (on the majority anyway) do not deny their checkered past, and have actually grown and matured from it. This is in stark contrast to our real enemy of today. The real enemy today (Radical Islam) are the same ones who did not outgrow those tyranical times (as christians did). They are the ones now doing the torturing, beheading, fining, imprisoning, forced conversions, etc, now.
Note I did not say “Islam”. I said Radical Islam. Islam Extremists.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:59 PM
For some reaon the first part of my post did not go thru:
That is why I enjoy your posts.
El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 5:00 PM
One of the things that I have often found the most telling about Jefferson is that he didn’t burn his bible or even merely ignore it, he set out to cut out the parts he disagreed with. That doesn’t seem like an act of someone with no faith.
Also he had a bench in the little church in Williamsburg, which he used to attend when he was governor. Has his name on it and everything.
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 5:03 PM
In any case, I enjoyed this conversation and hope I didn’t offend anyone. I may check in later, but frankly I have beers that just aren’t going to drink themselves.
Defense Guy on November 23, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Logically true. Well I am not so sure about the easily part though.
If you look at some other words of Jefferson, he may have believed in some sort of god, maybe, but not a god like most people who believe in god in do. For the other quote, from Michael in MI, I do think that he was speaking of God metaphorically. Also, if you say God it has a lot more gravitas than if you say man.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Good Lord! Don’t let us stop you! Get on ‘em!
(I may enjoy an adult beverage or two later, myself)
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 5:08 PM
A man must have his priorities straight. Sounds like you do.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM
My conservative friends entertain me often, almost as much as the liberal ones (who last night over dinner told me that real estate will sell well again, the day after G. Bush is thrown out of office and a liberal president takes his/her place; also, that the deficit and China/Japan, the EU, holding that power will all be nullified immediately).
- Federalism, except when Schiavo, gun ownership, abortion, gay marriages…
- Separation of church and state, except bibles in (public) schools
Also, this topic is on “bibles in schools or not”, from the standpoint of church/state separation, not atheists vs. theists. It’s the invariable fight/insult, like not being able to discuss C. Hitchens, without attacking his looks or preference for booth.
There was one thing which was exceptionally good in communism, schools. I will mourn forever that loss (please, not of communism, just the loss of those great schools under communism). They were truly unsurpassed. By grade 12 one had a well-rounded education on all things scientific and in the humanities. And, yes, the history of religions, or the context of religion in history classes, was a part of it, but never religion, of any kind. That took place, mostly unofficially, in churches, and in homes. And, it was good that way.
As an avid collector of eclectic cookbooks, the Jewish Cooking ones, in addition to Hungarian, are some of the very best.
Entelechy on November 23, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Yes, and to everything there is a season.
Turn turn turn.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I’m not sure what you mean. What I am wondering is if Thomas Jefferson did not like basing our country on the belief that our inalienable rights came from God. That if the people of our country stopped believing in God, then our nation crumbles.
I’m just trying to get a sense of the context.
It just seems odd to me that our nation would be based on the belief that our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness come from God, yet, at the same time, the founders somehow didn’t believe in God? That doesn’t make sense. Unless it was a democratic decision to base our country on that belief and not all the Founders agreed, but they signed their approval anyway?
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I am very much in agreement.
That is why I sometimes quote Popes on other threads.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Based on the Founders’ intention of Church-State separation, I don’t believe that it is unConstitutional for religious persons to be brought in to teach in public school religion classes or history classes about the religions. If there was a part of the curriculum where each week they had a discussion of the belief system and the history of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc., I wouldn’t think that would be unConstitutional. So long as it was as a way of learning about the religion, not as a way of prostletizing.
Now, with the Supreme Court case of Emerson v Board of Education, I think Justice Hugo Black’s interpretation of Church-State separation would deem this sort of thing unConstitutional.
Personally, I believe a general knowledge of the worldly religions would probably be a good thing for the average person to know. How they came to be, how they have affected the history of man and of nations, etc. And especially how they have affected the founding and the history of America. But, as many people have already stated, I would be wary of the current anti-Christian leftists in our current public schools to be teaching about religion. And I would also be wary about certain religious leaders teaching about religions as well.
So, given the state of the nation and our school systems today, I would say this is a bad idea. However, just based on the general concept, done in an ideal manner where the religions were taught factually, I think it is a good idea.
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 5:25 PM
My take, in putting Jefferson’s various pronouncements together and reconciling them, is that he did not believe in organized religion and clergy, or a god as most people think of God, for himself, but did think it better if most people believed in a god and “God given” rights (and morals), as “God given” rights have a lot more weight than man given rights (and morals). He definitely, unlike
ChuckChurch Norris, believed in separation of church and state.MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:25 PM
@ El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Still you have not given a SINGLE fact FOR creationism. Thats all I am asking. One FACT that helps to give the THEORY a basis in truth. I can give you a BOATLOAD of FACTS regarding evolution, which help the THEORY of evolution gain legitimacy. Can you provide ONE FACT for creationism?
muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Okay, that makes sense.
That also aligns with what my friend (right-leaning atheist) stated about the 10 Commandments and Moses. He suggested that Moses wanted to give weight to the 10 Commandments, so he attributed them to God. Sounds like that is what some people believe our Founding Fathers decided to do as well… attribute our basic rights to God, to give them more weight… or make sure that no man could come along someday and take them away.
However, if people really want to argue Church-State separation, wouldn’t they argue that our own Declaration of Independence is unConstitutional, since it states that our rights come from God (are “endowed by our Creator”)? So, conceivably, couldn’t a Supreme Court come along and state that the Declaration of Independence is unConstitutional and then decide that the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are no longer inalienable rights and can actually be taken away by government?
(Obviously, pro-life activists already argue that legalizing abortion subverts the inalienable right to life part)
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM
and then how would we be different from the Muslim countries?
no religion in public schools period. you want to send your kid to a religious school, then go private.
Kaptain Amerika on November 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM
As we close on 150 comments, it behooves me to give a fuller opinion on the subject (because you all want to know what I think).
I was raised (in Canada) in a strong Christian household, with a strong Christian extended family. My father, and my mother’s father, were and are Baptist preachers (my grandfather, incidentally and off-topic, was born and raised in Belfast, and first preached on street corners with the future Rev. Ian Paisley. Grumps (my grandfather) later parted company with the good reverend, as he found Paisley to be a very divisive, hate-filled personality). Home life was very happy and loving with strong Christian values and morals imparted upon my sister and I. That all said, I find myself in agreement with those here who have stated they would be uncomfortable have the Bible taught in public schools, beyond a purely historic perspective. I have seen all too many example of teachers distorting facts and injecting their personal politics and opinions into classrooms. And how unpleasant would it be for Christians to have their children taught the Bible (potentially) by someone whose beliefs or lifestyle are opposed to what it teaches?
Best keep Biblical instruction in the home and church, with allowances for (as was previously mentioned) extra-curricular group studies.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I recall years ago seeing some tests of my moms, from maybe the sixth grade, and they were like mine in H.S. I think that in each of the last few generations in the U.S. things have gone down hill. High School is now probably the equivalent to grade school and collage to H.S.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Could be i suppose. As a Polysci prof of mine said, “The U.S. Constitution is whatever a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court says it is”.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Still you have not given a SINGLE fact FOR creationism. Thats all I am asking. One FACT that helps to give the THEORY a basis in truth. I can give you a BOATLOAD of FACTS regarding evolution, which help the THEORY of evolution gain legitimacy. Can you provide ONE FACT for creationism?
muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
————
.
There’s a book called “GENESIS”….part of a set that you can buy over at amazon. If you can’t find it listed, just search for the #1-selling book of all time.
.
Tells you all you need to know about “creationism”
.
Note to self: If this is an example of the 80% Christian majority in this country, MAN are we in trouble for the 2008 election! Otoh, maybe this kind of loon showing up on Hot Air is just due to an overflow of people who are too whacked-out to “make it” on the Daily Kos. Lol.
.
Keith_Z on November 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 5:25 PM
We agree. I’d much rather keep the two separated because various religions might demand/receive too much time or intensity, and zealotry would dominate. It’s like a benevolent dictatorship – one never knows when the ‘benevolent’ gets dropped.
Btw – I love your flawless writing M in M, the care with which you reason, and the perfectly spelled posts, in addition to your politeness. Please consider accepting the invitation to RushBaby’s Texas Thanksgiving for 2008. Those folks are the crème de la crème of humanity. I’m tempted to self-invite :) Also, you have my respect and admiration, as a believer, or one who doesn’t. I love that you’ve been posting more here on HA in the last few days.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
One more item we’re “copasetic” on.
Entelechy on November 23, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Good point. Now, as much as I regard our “founding fathers” as very intelligent and gifted with tremendous forsight at the time of their existence, I don’t believe we should be taking cues from guys who have been pushing up the daisies for over 200 years. They were the right people at the time, but today, we need their counterparts (both men and women) who can guide our country in the current geopolitical paradigm (I always wanted to use that word).
And, yes, I, too, yearn for the day when people look at slick willy with the same opprobrium as I view Chuck “Hack TV actor and professional bully” Norris.
If being able to beat the crap out of someone makes you a hero, then Mike “Serial Rapist” Tyson will have the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Kill your TV and read a book.
thejackal on November 23, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Let me know who the modern-day Jeffersons, Madisons, Hamiltons, Franklins and Paines are. They maybe dead for about 200 years, but I’ll rely on what they wrote a little more than Hillary or GWB.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Yes, and The Constitution is a “living, breathing document”.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 6:25 PM
No, but you chose and choose to use it to negatively define those you disagree with.
And what of it is self righteous? What of it is ironic?
Most atheists I know of fall in line with the root definition of atheism – atheos: godless.
It has always struck me as rather odd how many of the primary definitions of atheism are of a negative nature.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Then you are not reading my posts. I have never nor would I ever confuse evolution with biogenesis or a biogenesis or lump any two theories together. You are not making an argument from the view of science or viewing how science functions. You appears to be trying to lump theories together based upon a theistic point of view.
Evolution seeks to address only how life has changed over time. Since this is in disagreement with what the bible claims, it is common for theist to demand that evolution also address the origin of life. It does not.
But evolution does disprove many aspects of creationism as in the way mankind became to be mankind, so evolution does address part of it.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 6:37 PM
And that is a common (theistic) misrepresentation of what the Big Bang states. The theory does not state the universe came from nothing. It states that all matter was condensed into a small point of enormous density and temperature.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Heh, I know Chuck could kick my ass (unless I was packin’) but damn that guy is getting old! And what’s up with his hair, is he wearing a rug now or does he just have really crappy hair?
Liberty or Death on November 23, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Chuck Norris’ hair cannot be cut by ordinary means; he orders each individual hair out, bites it to the desired length with his own teeth, then orders it back into its proper place.
Frozen Tex on November 23, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Lots of luck on that.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 7:05 PM
That reasoning only stands if what you seek to address can be summed up or addressed by a simplistic view or explanation. History is not such a topic and trying to do so with history has led to the simplistic explanation regarding the Civil War we have today.
Did you miss the other part of that post? “I speak of his centralizing of power in violation of the constitution.”
Lincoln’s action effectively destroyed the decentralized power of the states and established the ever-growing centralized power of the federal government. What we have now is the direct result of the centralized federal power left unchecked by the power outlined in the Constitution.
Such an expression will not be of much value to those would just dismiss them due to the Twain also being an atheist.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Heh. The point of quoting famous people is not to be correct, but rather to attempt to gather moral authority and add authority by fame to one’s argument. Don’t let the specifics and the realities get in the way of a good search by topic, cut and paste quotes marathon.
Gene, interesting view on Lincoln. He did assume powers that were questionable and he did enact policies timed with Congress’s recesses, but the continuation of them can’t be laid at his feet. He felt his actions were Constitutionally legitimate by necessity re: war powers. The fact that the E Branch has retained those powers in peace time in no more his fault then you being responsible for the man that follows you in your job.
Spirit of 1776 on November 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM
When will Christians learn that the only thing they ever get out of promoting Christianity in public schools is bs like Kwanzaa?
Jaynie59 on November 23, 2007 at 8:44 PM
See… when your Chuck Norris you can wear a lavender shirt and nobody will give you any crap about it.
Maxx on November 23, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Teaching the Bible in public schools is likely the best thing that could happen to “liberal Christianity”. They would know enough Bible verses to be dangerous. And I seriously doubt that Chuck Norris will like how they interpret the words of the Bible.
thuja on November 23, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Shut up and kick ass
ronsfi on November 23, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Hey. No it is not. The point is to add their wisdom to the mix. I have benefited, and continue to benefit, from their wisdom. Some others might too.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 9:41 PM
My view is less whitewashed. The man was a hypocrite. Prior to his election, secession was just fine with him. After election, succession was not. There were states that succeeded prior to him taking office and his excuse to wage the war was just that.
You are overlooking the view of the northern states regarding centralizing power in D.C. and the view of the south. It would seem that view has changed little since then.
And like then, we seem to have nothing more than politicians and those who seek power rather than the statesmen that founded this nation.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Ah, Entelechy.
You have made a Thanksgiving 2008 vision blossom in my mind. If you can still put up with us after we celebrate the election results with you in SoCal, we can sure put on a gratitude feast here in CenTex! Michael, I know you read what I wrote on the other thread, and I was quite sincere.
Say Yes.
RushBaby on November 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM
And then Communion
EricPWJohnson on November 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Is this some kind of hereditary jihad that you hold against Lincoln. Are you passing it down to your descendants?
So sad.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Why does Chuck’s collar remind me of Dr. Evil?
Yoosaion on November 23, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Odd choice of words. Hereditary jihad? What exactly are you trying to imply?
What is sad is your ad hominem replies. Pity that for all of your parroting the quotes of better men you cannot actually grasp what those quotes mean.
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 11:34 PM
MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Is that a lavender Neru jacket?
Coronagold on November 24, 2007 at 5:32 AM
Only if they teach the Deuterocanon and the full history of the book itself. How it came to be, the origin and date of each book, and the story of how each part became interpreted as it is.
If you argue that I weaken it, I reply, this makes it all the stronger. Yes, there is good reason to want to have Atheist Sunday school. And honestly, AP, if you teach Latin, and Aristotle and Plato, and Machiavelli, and put each in his time and context, you will also do the world a service.
When I took a ‘history of Christianity’ course, it changed my whole world. Suffice it to say that it made my faith stronger – and more realistic.
RiverCocytus on November 24, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Per the request for “proof of creationism” and the fact that the earth is billions of years old:
I ask all involved to participate in this simple exercise I have used several times in my science class in a public school. Pretend that you ARE the Creator. Ok, no, you’re not all powerful and you’re certainly not Bruce Almighty, but you do get to create your very own world. Go! Take about 5 minutes and let me know what your world looks like.
I dare any one of you to tell me that your world was a pinpoint of intense mass and heat. No, and to the contrary (unless you had the forethought to intentionally create that point out of spite) you probably have a world with massive trees or treelike plants of some kind, lush tropical forests, etc. Even the sci-fi nuts have a world similar to ours, just containing silicon-based lifeforms or something, but the key is that every world I’ve ever had created by a student had one thing in common: stuff was old!
Try to understand what’s happening here. Oh look! I just cut down a 300 year old silicon based treelike lifeform. And the scientist in me says, “well, that’s clear scientific proof that this world is at least 300 years old.” But is it? Didn’t you just create that world 5 minutes ago?
Now, lets examine the real earth. You are a smart creator. You want the man you just created (30 or so years of age) to have lots of trees to eat from (decades to hundreds of years of age,) and animals to frolic with (several years of age.) Mind you all of this was just created. And as any farmer knows, it all boils down to dirt. Yep, ever heard the expression “older than dirt?” Well, that’s because dirt is the oldest thing on earth.
Let’s look at those trees, the ones created to provide shade, food, oxygen (sorry, global warming moment,) and habitat for the creation. How do you suppose they’re gonna grow in NEW dirt? New dirt doesn’t grow anything. Only dirt that contains dead decaying organisms in it can provide nutrients. So, assuming God knew what He was doing, we’ve just determined that, given the Biblical account in Genesis, He created stuff that was already dead.
A scientist would dig it up and use it as “proof” of the world’s age, but would he be right? Surely the earth has billions of years of measurable history, but did it truly experience those years, or was that history simply written into the creation? Think about it, with a truly open mind.
We can’t prove that it happened this way, but to me it’s as good as proof that all your “billions of years old = evolution” is wrong.
y2church on November 24, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Oh and Gene –
I disagree with you on a lot of what you’ve said here, but your dead on about Lincoln consolidating power in DC. Revisionist history afoot as it concerns him. He was no saviour of the nation and he didn’t even free the slaves – only the ones in the seceeding states. Some among us, especially the GOP members, need to take a long historical look at Honest Abe.
y2church on November 24, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Gene Splicer on November 23, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I think you are reading into my comments whatever it is you want to read. So let’s start this over again, and anyone can play. Which established science would you say is best suited to take the place of creationism? Let’s say for purposes of this conversation we are only interested in how the earth was created.
Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Except for Washington, even the founding statesmen became politicians once we defeated the British. The kind of things they would say about each other, using proxies or pseudonyms in the press is one reason we got the odious Alien and Sedition Acts.
Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I can believe you believe that. I would suggest however, that it is shown to be otherwise when you use a quote to counter someone else’s quote – illustrating the intent not to collect but project opinion.
Wow. Well I’ve heard a lot of Monday morning criticism of him, but this one takes the cake.
Succession was not “fine” with him. In point of fact, after his election he issued no new speeches or comments (save one which he wished he had back) so as not to inflame a delicate situation. I will happy to point you to his speeches or works to answer your various concerns, but we should start by at least being honest. The war was begun because the South fired on Fort Sumter. You will note that Lincoln did not even attempt a military rescue nor did he ship arms to the fort, he merely shipped supplies (food, etc). Let’s be honest.
He had no power to free all the slaves, he didn’t deem he had that constitutional power. Moreover he led the people by the increments that could be accepted. To your comment of revisionism I offer this: Few men are vilified then venerated within their own lifetime by those they worked with. Washington was one (Conway a great example) and Lincoln another (Stanton a great example). When the power of their integrity converts their critics in their own day, who is doing the revising?
I suggest to you his letter to James Conkling, an Unconditional Union man (8/26/63); I believe you will find it addresses your concerns.
Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 12:05 PM
With the possible exception of covering the world’s religion’s from a historical perspective, there’s no place for compulsory teaching of religion in our K-12 schools.
However, the teaching of positive human characteristics – such as patience, perseverence, humility, charity, and yes, even faith (optimism), is acceptable – especially during the earlier school years.
CliffHanger on November 24, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Forgot to mention… “responsibility” and “honesty”.
CliffHanger on November 24, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Creationism has nothing to do with evolution per se.
Evolution is a series of changes over time of living things, Creation deals with *origins*. Abiogenesis is the secular version and it has zero facts or proven theories to back it up whatsoever. No living things created from non-living matter, even with all our technology.
The solution to the school thing is simple:privatize them all and I can send my kids to Christian schools instead of being forced to pay for the ones who spread lies about various things(Christianity included).
DavidM on November 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Offering the Bible as an elective course is a fantastic idea. Also, students should know some Wester Civilization references:
Samaritans
The Flood
Garden of Eden
Parting the Red Sea
Parables
Just to name a few.
Mattsanchez on November 24, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I suggest you stop with the over analyzing pop-psychology and read what you said and what I said in response again, S-L-O-W-L-Y this time.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
- Freud
Although in your case it seems more like some kind of tick or itch of some kind.
MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 3:08 PM
BTW Spirit of whatever, there is no internal conflict between what you refer to as “collecting” and “projecting”. In fact they kind of go together.
MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I’m not exactly sure what you mean here by itch, etc; and I didn’t mean to give you pop psychology (again not clear what that means). I mean merely a literary view. Everyone is taught in freshman comp to do that – take a topic sentence, find 3 supporting facts/quotes and sum up and submit. That’s not an indictment of you or a physiological observation, that’s standard fare and has been for a long time. Take for example the beginning of Gore’s book (A.on Reason) with his gratuitous quoting of philosophers – this is a prime example (re: your 3:13 – if you read his usuage of them, they are to bolster his view point. If you don’t want to call that projection, you are welcome to use your own label).
Re: your point on garnering wisdom. TJ, for ex, was a man whose depth, scope, and honesty of his intellectual inquiry produces quotes that can support almost every argument imaginable (because he argued most of them). Pulling one of those quotes and using it, says less about him then it does the opinion of the person that uses it. There is a reason you quote Twain as opposed to E. Dickinson or Twain as opposed to R. Rogers. That’s not a personal indictment, you think he was pristine in his thinking as you understand it so you forward it; that’s no crime.
If you care to dismiss this simple observation, you are welcome to do so. It is of no benefit to me to argue with you over it because I’m not here to change your mind or style, and none to you because I am not in your target audience. But consider if I posted a series of quotes in rebuttal of any particular point – would you see Jefferson or would you see me? I dare say you would see me.
Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I have been trying to address your posts very specifically and this point regarding the replacement of creationism has already been made. Creationism seeks to address a wide range of subjects. There is no one theory in science that seeks to do the same thing and this fact seems lost on most people who not only support creationism but demand that evolution address all the same topics creationism does. IT cannot since it seeks to address only the change of life over time.
How the earth was created would be addressed by the current theory of how our solar system and all the planets formed 4.6 billion years ago form a nebula or similar cloud of gas and dust.
True, but regarding the function of the government in regards to state, federal and civilian rights and powers, would any have supported the nonsense we have now in regards to centralized power and violation of personal freedoms?
Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 4:02 PM
y2church
I’ve heard your type argument before regarding the age of the Earth. If what you claim is true, then the religion of Last Thusdayism is also a real possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
In the end, science can only rely upon the natural and mundane evidence we have. Anything supernatural as described by you or Last Thurdaysim is simply something that science cannot address.
Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 4:03 PM
My criticism of Lincoln is based upon his actions, statements and legacy due to the Civil War.
First of all, you are claiming that I am not being honest? If not, then please do not use such terminology. How about an honest portrayal of Fort Sumter? A state succeeds from the Union prior to Lincoln taking office and Lincoln sends in troops and expect no reprisal or defense by SC? It sounds as if you are simply repeating the whitewashed and simplified history we often written by those who win conflict to demonize their enemies.
Like I stated, Lincoln was a hypocrite.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this a right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.”
Lincoln 1848.
Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 4:26 PM
With all due respect – how stupid.
Argue the politics and the philosophy. But only the weak-minded Google the viewpoint they favor, cherry-pick out of context quotes, and then present them as evidence.
The reality is that every ‘founding father’ you mention famously had rather complex, deep, and frequently contradictory views on faith and religion. In other words – they were like most of us. They had both beliefs and questions. Choosing a few quotes and citing them as proving some facet of our political founding is simply false. And stupid.
Want to see how easy your exercise is to counter? Here you go – and note, please, that I do this not to prove a point – other than to ridicule the way you attempt to prove yours:
Clearly, the founding fathers would insist on mandatory Christian education in public schools, right?
I mean – the handful of quotes I picked sure seem to prove that. So it must be true.
Jesus wept. So did Zeus, Mohammad, and Thor. Think for yourselves.
Professor Blather on November 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Ah, very good. Thanks for the quote. Now I understand where that moniker ‘hypocrite’ came from. Is it safe to say that this reflects your general view?
If you are making the assertion that Fort Sumter was sent troops from the north (the Fort was considered Federal property), I ask you to support that statement. As I understand it the numerical change was a factor of a complete withdraw of a sister fort due to supply and security necessities, not from reinforcements from Lincoln. I grant you they were discussed, but disagree on your premise because they were not sent so as to not provoke war. I’m not sure how you equilibrate the offensive action on Ft. Sumter as a defensive measure especially if taken in the light of Buchanan’s Sec/War shuttling military equipment to the South previous to Lincoln’s inaugural. If you consider the blow struck by the South to be the cause to label the war as Lincoln’s war, then I doubt we can reconcile our views.
No, I’m not attempting to call you dishonest that was perhaps the wrong word, I just assumed that Ft. Sumter would be a point of agreement. On reading your post I suspect for various reasons we see similar events in dissimilar ways. There is no question that the motives in the South are many and some of them – such as a continuation of Jeffersonian though have some nobility. However, others, such as Sen. Edmund Ruffin clearly presented events in a less than truthful manner to accelerate their agenda. Such propaganda (and the following calls to violence) seemed very palatable in the time post-JB’s raid, and oft projected on to Lincoln himself.
Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 4:55 PM
This confuses me, because I am not sure what other range of subjects is included. To my mind creationism only addresses how the earth was created and how life began on earth, and is spelled out only in the first few chapters of Genesis. If you are using some other source than that, I would be interested in taking a look at it.
As to the founders, and with regards to what they would think of our current form of government, I suspect that you are likely correct. That said, it’s hard to really know for sure because, for example, Jefferson, before he became president railed against pretty much everything Washington/Hamilton wanted to do (Central Banks, Navy, Standing army, etc.) as abuses of federal power, but when he became POTUS he was singing a very different tune.
DavidM on November 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Thanks, I’d say we agree.
Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM
But enough about me, now tell us all about you. What motivates you? What are your hopes and fears? Did your mom and dad love you enough?
MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »