Church and State, or State Church?

[SDR]

No language is too strong if it accurately describes the current situation and its causes. One is reminded of the colonial pamphleteers of the American pre-revolutionary period.

SDR

[Architorture]

[Richard Haut]

[Architorture]

yeah but they don't even mention the word religion once....

[Architorture]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/02/bush.pope.ap/index.html

uh oh... now bush is taking time out of his weekly address to speak highly of the pope... next thing you know he'll be turning the constitution over to the new one....

[SDR]

Bush will probably expect to be given special treatment at the Pope's funeral; Italian authorities reportedly will bar weapons from those present, and from their security personnel. . .

In the mean time, the beat goes on:

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040605B.shtml

SDR

[Architorture]

once again i have to say that i entirely uphold any official's right to speak about their personal beliefs all they want...regardless of their position in the government they still retain all of their individual freedoms... granted their position may afford them a greater audience, but that is no reason to restrict their rights...

so long as those beliefs aren't being acted upon through altering or creating legislation that would run counter to the constitution...

as for the US being a 'christian nation' i think obviously there is some truth to it... john locke obviously looked at the bible, it was a document that had been around for hundreds of years and had driven the way people lived...and he obviously looked at the ancient philosophers as well... who's influence can be seen in biblical writings as well..

you aren't going to find much philosophy in the western tradition that hasn't been influenced by, reacted against, or influenced by the same thinkers as the bible... it is just how it is... when a book is around for 2000 years it tends to get noticed...

i think i've said it earlier, i'm no lover of the evangelicals and the other groups that the author accuses, but i am against what often times comes off as flat out 'anti-religion' rhetoric... where as soon as god, jesus, christianity, ect ect get mentioned there is a dismissive or violent reaction...

i also find it odd that those who criticize people for expressing their beliefs often times site the defamation of some other groups beliefs as being bad...if the author has such a problem with the general's fanatic beliefs, why does he care if he is bashing another group of people with similar types of beliefs?

then talking about the intentions of the founding fathers and how they were so pristinely secular... well these are also the same people who condoned slavery and the repression of women....not that religions didn't condone these same things, but its not like the philosophy of the times wasn't without flaw as well...

i like the example of how 'god, jesus, ect ect' are never mentioned in the constitution... while neither is separation of church and state, freedom of speech, income tax, voting rights, ect ect... those are all contained in amendments to the constitution....the system is created to reflect the society around it...so if the religious right represents the society in which we are, then i would expect the constitution to reflect that...

[obviously that isn't the case though, just an example]

[dgt]

Sorry my post is a little late concerning the evolution vs. creationism topic, but I just stumbled onto this threads.

Science is very near to my heart. Architorture mentions a problem with evolution and the flegellum. Here are the famous '10 questions evolution cannot answer' where that is from;

http://www.leaderu.com/science/10questionsbioteacher.html

Here are the answers;

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.10q.html

The word theory is problematic. Scientifically, however, 'theory' is above fact. Theory is used only to describe those concepts that have been upheld through numerous experiments, hold to observable data, can predict outcomes in the system, and hold up when new variables are found. These include the Special and General Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, Electomagnetism, and The Theory of Gravity.

Architorture, you are right when you say concepts can change. You are wrong when you say there are no facts in science. They include observable data and results from experiments. The problem comes with interpretation. Science though has an answer for that too. It is called interdependancy. Information and experiments are published for anyone and everyone to copy and see for themselves. Only through extremely long periods of this process is a concept even considered a hypothesis. It is the most efficient and reliable way to gather information we have in our limited existence on this planet.

The point of contention is the fact that most people are not scientists. Therefore, most people do not care to understand the process or the results. They make judgements on limited and biased information to fit their needs (the exact opposite of science). Science has become so specialized that it is impossible for a single person to understand indepth elements in all branches. This inevitably leads to mistrust and skepticism.

Do not get me wrong, I do not worship science. But I do find it a medium to understand our universe in an objective, logical manner. The bible, specifically the creation story, I feel is a beautiful metaphor written by a talented author.

SDR
I am also troubled with the current administration's inferance that 'God is on our side'. This being the case, they can immediately demonize and stamp out all opposition. It is exactly like the War in Iraq. If you question the merrits and dissagree with the war you are against the support of the troops. This is ludicrous. Of course you can be critical of the reasons for war yet appreciate the horrible duty that your army must carry out.

I did not mean to sound like I am giving a lecture, though my wife often accuses me of such outside of academia. I apologize if it seems so and know that this is all my humble opinion.

Regards,
dgt

[dgt]

One more thing before I get off of my soap box. Why is there no coverage of the Downing Street Memo in the media. For those who do not know, here is a brief description of it.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/02/the_secret_downing_street_memo.html

It is the smoking gun that proves this entire administration lied about the War in Iraq. A war that has caused thousands of lives on both sides as well as untold amounts in the future do to the use of depleated uranium in tank shells and other explosives. If ever there was an impeachable offense this is it. Even if impeaching is not the answer at least someone being fired (Condoleeza Rice)? Perhaps just demoted? No, that will not happen.

-dgt

[Richard Haut]

[SDR]

[Shh! You'll awaken the dreaded Eugene T. . .]

In other times and places, those responsible for failure took for themselves "the ultimate penalty." Even today -- well, maybe not recently, but within memory -- certain Japanese executives have humbly apologized and stepped down, for the "crime" of failing their stockholders and pensioners.

That's not the American way, however. If Karl Rove has determined that The Party will "do better" never to admit error or defeat, then that is what will happen, from the top, down. Political success trumps all.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, DGT. Don't stop now; we need all the level heads we can find, now, it seems to me.

SDR

[SDR]

The next installment of a series on religious extremists in America, and their goals. . .

www.truthout.org/docs_2005/053105A.shtml

SDR