Obama, Clinton Face Deep Questions on God, Bible

Howard »

Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

secular: "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body"

Unlike Iran, America has a secular government.

Obama, Clinton Face Deep Questions on God, Bible

Howard »

Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 11

"Who told you our government was supposed to be secular?"

I thought everyone knew that. Did you think America is a theocracy?

Supernatural beliefs should be private. Candidates for president should not have to argue about who is the most holy. They should be talking about the nation's problems and our future, instead of talking about religious ideas. They are campaigning for president, not preacher.

Obama, Clinton Face Deep Questions on God, Bible

Howard »

Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 15

"Obama, Clinton Face Deep Questions on God, Bible"

I thought Obama and Clinton were running for president of the United States, not preacher of the United States. Don't we have a secular government? What does God and the Bible have to do with economic and foreign policy?

I heard that in Europe politicians never discuss religion when campaigning. That's make sense. A person's beliefs should be private. A politician's supernatural beliefs, if he has any, should have nothing to do with secular governments.

Huckabee May Run Again in 2012

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

I noticed some Christians on this blog and also Huckabee seem to be in favor of an American Christian theocracy. They want an America that looks a lot like Iran. I ask them to read the following information very carefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

ifeelfine72,

I rarely have anything good to say about Christians, but I have to congratulate you. If there is any hope for the future of American progress, it's Christians like yourself who stand up to the creationists who are only interested in getting in the way of progress.

Thank you and please keep up the good work. You give me hope for our country's future.

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The problem with world views is when people use their world view as an excuse to make statements about scientific evidence they know nothing about.

My point is scientists do all the work, and the creationists, without ever bothering to understand important scientific discoveries, say the scientist is wrong. It doesn't matter if the scientist is the best and most productive scientist in the world. According to the creationist the scientist's work is for nothing because he has a bias.

I respectfully suggest the creationists are full of it. They don't know what they're talking about. They should not say "my world view is different so I translate the evidence differently" without knowing anything about the evidence.

For example, Collins has seen molecular evidence with his own eyes. He has seen what no creationist has ever seen. Creationists don't do research. Also, they know virtually nothing about DNA, especially not compared to Collins (and thousands of other scientists). I'm amazed you would accuse Collins of having a bias, especially since he is one of the most famous religious scientists in history.

Creationists keep forgetting a major difference between them and the biologists. The difference is the creationists are wrong and the biologists are right. The biologists don't think they are right. They know they are right. They are absolutely 100% certain all life living today evolved from common ancestors.

Imagine somebody saying the earth is flat, and defends his insane flat earth idea by saying he has a different world view. There is absolutely no difference between a creationist and a flat-earther. They are both equally wrong.

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

listenthink, I have been studying the evidence for evolution for several years. You haven't studied any science because you are lazy. Why don't you educate yourself? Are you afraid of science?

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:10 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"No pro-evolutionists are presenting scientific proofs that macrovolution is true."

Why should anyone waste their time explaining science to the willfully ignorant? If you were really interested in the evidence for biological evolution you would have done your own research a long time ago.

Huckabee May Run Again in 2012

Howard »

Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

dmulholand: "I would venture to say that most Christians believe that Separation of Church and state as you understand it is a myth."

I was wondering, dmulholand, what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you understand?

Another question is why do you and other protestant extremists show no respect to people of minority religions like Judaism? You might have noticed American Jews respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Most Christians also respect the Establishment Clause, because unlike the protestant extremists, they understand the wall of separation is in everyone's best interest, including Christians.

It's very obvious Huckabee has no respect at all for the Establishment Clause and that why he has no chance of ever being elected to be president.

Huckabee May Run Again in 2012

Howard »

Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"We had a whole country of slave owners, as slavery had not been declared illegal, so the fact that Washington was a slave owners is a moot or irrevelant point."

So if slavery is legal, there's nothing wrong with it?

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I think all religions are childish nonsense, therefore I'm religious.

I can't imagine anything more boring than this worthless discussion about your refusal to use a dictionary.

Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Emmaus: "Creation science"

You can't say "Creation science" for the same reason you can't say "Resurrection science". Both Creation and the Resurrection are religious beliefs. You are mixing up religion with science. That's wrong and it's dishonest.

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

I don't accept biological evolution because I have faith it's the correct explanation for the diversity of life.

I accept evolution because of the powerful and rapidly growing molecular evidence for it.

The Resurrection requires faith, lots of faith.

Scientific facts like biological evolution which are supported by evidence from many branches of science, evidence which has been accumulating for 150 years and continues to grow rapidly, does not require faith.

Science is science, and religion is religion. These two completely different words should not be confused with each other. Science does not care what religion says. If a religion conflicts with a scientific fact, that's the religion's problem. Scientists could care less about ancient religious myths.

Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Good grief Emmaus. Answers In Genesis claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Surely you don't think these uneducated people have any value.

Florida Submits 'Evolution Academic Freedom Act' to Senate

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:21 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Why is it called the Evolution Academic Freedom Act? Why not also have a Gravity Academic Freedom Act? It's obvious this bill was invented for religious reasons. The author of this bill, Senator Rhonda Storms, is a very religious Baptist, and she knows absolutely nothing about science.

Perhaps Senator Storms would like to give biologists the freedom to explain the mountains of evidence for biological evolution in Sunday schools.

I suggest Florida's politicians who know nothing about biology should let scientists make decisions about science education, just like they let mathematicians make decisions about math education.

An organization of scientists explained why this bill will harm science education. This was published by Scientists & Engineers for America:

"Florida Senate support for teaching creationism"

"The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill by a vote of 6-4 that would protect teachers who include creationism in their lesson plans from being reprimanded by school officials. The bill is a direct response to the State Board of Education decision in January to make teaching evolution mandatory. This is some scary stuff."

"Lawmakers going out of their way to ensure that religion can be infused into science lesson plans only serves to highlight how important it is for scientists to get more involved in the political process. The bill falls short of directly placing creationism into classrooms, but it paves the way for bad science teachers to inject their personal religious views into their lessons. This is an embarrassment for the state and the country."

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

HAWK49: "you are religious"

Non-religious people are religious?

Do you also think a circle is a square?

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"The fundamentalists deny that evolution has taken place; they deny that the earth and the universe as a whole are more than a few thousand years old, and so on. There is ample scientific evidence that the fundamentalists are wrong in these matters, and that their notions of cosmogony have about as much basis in fact as the Tooth Fairy has."

[Isaac Asimov, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

This is your problem: "That is the path I followed to finally accepting Christ."

Apparently you think accepting the science of biological evolution equals rejecting Christ.

Well, the religious implications of science is your problem, not mine. But you need to understand that if you want to join the rest of us here in the 21st century, you're going to have to either find some way to make your religion accommodate science, or you're going to have to throw out your religion, because science will never accommodate any religious belief.

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:14 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

"our respective religious worldviews"

According to you, my acceptance of the massive, overwhelming, and powerful evidence for evolution that has been accumulating for 150 years from many branches of science, is a religious worldview.

According to you, the science of biological evolution is religious.

You need to understand it's easier for people to communicate when they all use the dictionary definition of words. When you make up your own definitions for words like "religious", you harm your reputation.

Your idea that science is religious is as senseless as calling the Resurrection scientific.

"The evidence supporting macroevolution is wanting"

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. How hard would it be to google "evolution evidence"? You would get about ten million websites. How hard is it to do your own research and make an effort to learn something?

Changing the definitions of words, and making false statements about scientific evidence, greatly damages your credibility.

Imagine somebody telling you the evidence for the earth's orbit around the sun is wanting. You would think he was an uneducated fool.

Well, guess what any biologist would think of your claim that the "evidence supporting macroevolution is wanting". The biologist would most certainly think you are uneducated and/or dishonest.

If you ever do decide to educate yourself, you will accomplish nothing if you only study what the liars for Jesus say. That's what creationists do. They avoid real scientists and only read what the liars say. The result is they learn nothing. They remain willfully ignorant for the rest of their lives.

Anti-Darwin 'Expelled' Film, Atheist Saboteurs Clash Ahead of Release

Howard »

Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution."

-- Richard Dawkins