quote:

Originally posted by PE:
Nice point. I've been chastized here for confusing the right with the religious right. It's really only the strongly religious right that really concerns me, primarily because I see it as a very small step from setting up a government based on religious values to persecuting people who don't believe.

I often do that as well. But it just seems like the right is run by religious conservatives.

There seems to be a lot going on in California as far as "The Governor" goes. Here is a CNN article on the dems opposing his workings. I really don't know much about the 2 billion dollars that isn't going to education. But what I find funny is this quote:

quote:

During the budget fight last year, he branded Democrats "girlie men," infuriating some who called the remark sexist and homophobic. Two days after the Democrats took a drubbing at the polls in the November election, Schwarzenegger referred to leaders of the party as "losers."

I see what they are getting at but it was just a quote from a damn movie. The democrats just seem to whine too frequently since they lost another election.

I will come down on the side of life each and every time. I am not on the side of the death penalty because I believe someone can be helped, no matter what they have done. Look at Dahmer. He became a Christian just before he died. Terry Shiavo? I wouldn't want to go against anyone’s wishes. But I agree with pE that that was a disgusting, horrible way to die.

As far as education goes, I would be offended if a professor tried to "push" evolution on me. Just as many of you think I might be "unreasonable" to not believe in evolution, I think it's unreasonable to believe that I am a "descendant" of a monkey. To me, after looking at the "evidence", creation is the only think that makes sense (I'm not meaning this to be a back-and-forth between different "evidences" on each side). When you look at life...how it begins...how it grows...how bones know where to go and what to fuse to...how this tiny brain learns so much so quickly...how a baby knows to start breathing air after breathing liquid for 9 months...to me, its lunacy to believe that anyone but God had his hand in it.

Free Speech: The first amendment was put in place for a reason. If we begin to curtail that, we have a serious problem. I also have a problem with professors who would essentially force their opinion on me saying "evolution is the only way to believe". I know pE's beliefs, and I highly respect him for the way he teaches. I am simply worried about this country. If Ward Churchill wants to spout his lunatic (in my opinion) ideas, more power to him. That is what makes this nation so great. But, when the security of our country begins to be jeopardized, that's when I have a problem. What good is freedom if no one is alive to enjoy it?

quote:

Originally posted by JackietheBlade:
Free Speech: The first amendment was put in place for a reason. If we begin to curtail that, we have a serious problem. I also have a problem with professors who would essentially force their opinion on me saying "evolution is the only way to believe". I know pE's beliefs, and I highly respect him for the way he teaches. I am simply worried about this country. If Ward Churchill wants to spout his lunatic (in my opinion) ideas, more power to him. That is what makes this nation so great. But, when the security of our country begins to be jeopardized, that's when I have a problem. What good is freedom if no one is alive to enjoy it?

Nice points. I don't think free speech should be an absolutely unlimited right. I share your assessment of Churchill's views (I thought his paper, which I read in full and had one of my classes read and criticize) was poorly argued drivel. But I don't see any harm in allowing him to SAY those things...if you want to run the argument that he could incite extremists, you can make the same claim about Christian fundamentalists. Read Eric Rudolph's "manifesto"...inspired by his extreme faith in a certain version of Christian fundamentalism.

I think it's fair to try to teach as many different arguments on an issue as possible. I may hold a certain view, but I don't think it does my students any favors to merely tell them what I think.

I'm not sure about where you can go and not have evolution "pushed" on you, in terms of science. If you were taking a biology class and the professor wasn't trying to push evolution, I'd be a little worried. I'm certainly astonished by the amount of intricacy and complexity to human life (and all other life)...but I don't feel like a "lunatic" for believing that it's all the product of fortuitous circumstances, and not intelligent design. There's a lot of space out there....the right primordial soup had to come together somewhere eventually. Even a blind chicken gets a kernal of corn now and then...

quote:

I will come down on the side of life each and every time. I am not on the side of the death penalty because I believe someone can be helped, no matter what they have done.

I think that's a very nice sentiment, and is part of the reason that I, too, am against the death penalty. A bigger reason for me though, is that its simply cruel. The purpose of our prison and judicial system should be to create a society that is best for everyone, including criminals. If someone is pronounced an incorrigible murderer we should do what is necessary to prevent him from killing anyone else, but we should also try to make life as pleasant as possible for the killer. When someone is diagnosed with a physical illness, we do all we can to treat him until he gets better, and if his disease is incurable we try to make the rest of his life as pleasant as possible. Why should we treat mental illnesses any differently?

quote:

As far as education goes, I would be offended if a professor tried to "push" evolution on me. Just as many of you think I might be "unreasonable" to not believe in evolution, I think it's unreasonable to believe that I am a "descendant" of a monkey.

If a biology teacher is not teaching evolution, they should be relieved of their job. A physics teacher that denied the veracity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity would be pronounced lunatic, as should any biologist that denies evolution. Both theories may seem counterintuitive at first glance, but both have been proven true by decades of scientific investigation. I don't think I would describe a professor's teaching of evolution "pushing" it on a student any more than I would the teaching of Einstein's theories. If you don't know how any of the apparent miracles you mentioned could be produced by evolution, you probably haven't read enough about it.

quote:

I am simply worried about this country. If Ward Churchill wants to spout his lunatic (in my opinion) ideas, more power to him. That is what makes this nation so great. But, when the security of our country begins to be jeopardized, that's when I have a problem. What good is freedom if no one is alive to enjoy it?

I'm worried too. Partly for this country if things like free speech are suppressed and we continue carrying out murderous policies abroad. But I'm even more worried for countries that could become victims of the US's overwhelming military and economic power. The United States foreign policy record is a brutal one and is the main reason we see terrorism. However, the vast majority of terrorism involving the United States happens to be the United States carrying out terrorism against less powerful countries. I could give examples if you want, but I think this post is long enough already.

I have a BIO degree. The THEORY of evolution is the cornerstone of BIO, and it doesn't deny that there's a creator somewhere, technically. All scientific theories are hogwash; that's why they are theories. The entire concept of postulates and theories is that if YOU can prove them wrong, then maybe they're wrong, but until then, WE HAVE THIS THEORY!

Science is a religion. I think I posited this somewhere else. It's the secular humanist's religion, although I don't believe that secular humanists care one hoot in hell about anything except what they care about. That's what makes them exactly the same as everybody else in this world. We only care about what we care about, so God bless you all, whether you care or not. It certainly ain't gonna hurt you!

Thanks for the comments guys. You know I always appreciate your candor. I guess I should clarify a couple things:

I'm sure there are people reading this that think I am one of those nuts that thinks all science is silly and believes none of it. On the contrary.

I wanted to be a scientist when I was young. I have been "studying" Einstein's Theory of Relativity for years. I developed a "theory" (although simplistic) and wrote a paper in high school on why light can not escape a black hole. I have been fascinated with black holes since and read the latest news on them from the scientific fields on a weekly basis (google alerts are great!) There's a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy about to devour us by the way (and "about" is, of course, relative).

A few great quotes from Einstein that I'm sure you've heard:

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I have a BIO degree. The THEORY of evolution is the cornerstone of BIO, and it doesn't deny that there's a creator somewhere, technically.

Maybe this is where "creation science" fits in. I can't really rebut anyone who claims they believe in both hard science and religion. It doesn't seem incomprehensible to me that one could hold both. But, to those who don't think we could have possibly descended from apes, I have to ask why not? Why couldn't God have simply set things up that way? And how do you explain the amount of shared DNA that we have with chimpanzees (98% or something like it)? The fear of admitting that we couldn't possibly have evolved from apes, to me, seems merely to be human smugness and anthropcentrism.

quote:

I have a BIO degree. The THEORY of evolution is the cornerstone of BIO, and it doesn't deny that there's a creator somewhere, technically. All scientific theories are hogwash; that's why they are theories. The entire concept of postulates and theories is that if YOU can prove them wrong, then maybe they're wrong, but until then, WE HAVE THIS THEORY!

I can understand what you're saying here, but some theories are so well proven (like say Newton's laws of physics) that it would be unreasonable to doubt them. Evolution is as much fact as other scientific theories out there that people take for granted. I just don't thikn its accepted because it contradicts some beliefs that people hold dear.

However, I guess we should probably define evolution more clearly. By evolution, I don't necessarily mean that there is no possibility at all that a Creator had a role in starting the process (though I think unlikely), it just points out the process by which life evolved.

I take exception to your characterization of science as a religion though. Science has no sacred beliefs. Anything goes, so long as it can pass the test of scientific experimentation. Religion is different in that it has a fixed set of beliefs that are not questioned by its members. (At least religion in its traditional sense. I know its not this way for everyone, however, because my dad's different.)

quote:

A few great quotes from Einstein that I'm sure you've heard:

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

I'm no expert on Einstein, but I do know that his conception of God was very different from any religion that I know of. He thought that the set of laws that govern the universe were essentially God, not a human figure in the sky. Discover magazine recently had a whole issue dedicated to Einstein, with different scientists saying what they liked most and what they liked least about Einstein. One scientist said what he liked least was that he used the word God in a misleading way.

quote:

I don't believe that secular humanists care one hoot in hell about anything except what they care about.

Is it possible to care about something you don't care about? I'm confused.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

I don't believe that secular humanists care one hoot in hell about anything except what they care about.

Is it possible to care about something you don't care about? I'm confused.

I thought that one made the MOST sense. The context is that people only care/think about things from their own perspective and usually not from the other person's "alien" perspective. It can be compared to two people carrying on a conversation in two different languages, neither knowing a word of the other's tongue.

As far as science being a religion, I believe that wholeheartedly because scientists have "faith" in their theories and "facts". When a scientist tries to explain that he's discovered something in deep space even though it can't be seen, he uses faith to draw those conclusions based on what he "knows" about what he can "see" here on Earth. The thing is that the scientist also discusses things in the context that they are the way they are because of a theory. Any "facts" which may contradict the theory are ignored or disputed by their "faith".

I realize this is a vague discussion, but Jackie's mention of black holes reminds me how much everybody originally scoffed at and then accepted Stephen Hawking's theories on them. When Hawking recently changed his opinion and said that matter CAN escape from them, the same everybodies went nutso.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

quote:

As far as science being a religion, I believe that wholeheartedly because scientists have "faith" in their theories and "facts". When a scientist tries to explain that he's discovered something in deep space even though it can't be seen, he uses faith to draw those conclusions based on what he "knows" about what he can "see" here on Earth. The thing is that the scientist also discusses things in the context that they are the way they are because of a theory. Any "facts" which may contradict the theory are ignored or disputed by their "faith".

I strongly disagree that scientists ignore facts which contradict their theories. Perhaps a small number of rogue scientists do (just as some rogue "historians" deny the Holocaust), but the whole idea of science is that theories can be disproved. That is where it differs from religion. Religion does not allow the possibility that some of their tenets can be disproved. The instances in which the church has admitted being wrong in the past is when science provides incontrovertible evidence. It became pretty hard for the church to keep denying that the earth rotated around the sun when the evidence kept piling up.

There are definitely theories that are on shaky ground and should not be regarded as facts (and deep space is one of the areas where scientists cannot be sure about everything). But these are different than time-tested, ironclad theories like evolution that no genuine scientist would deny (though they may have arguments about details. See Gould and Dawkins.)

We may be having an apples and oranges discussion. I'm talking mostly about all the new fossil finds and most of the astronomical discoveries. There are so many of these "discoveries" discussed in the newspaper, media, etc. A fossil is found and scientists discuss in no uncertain terms what it is and where it fits in the historical scheme of things. I've read about so many of these discoveries being identified as something and then later being dismissed or reclassified that it makes it difficult to believe scientists at all when they speak in such black-and-white terms. It truly makes me wonder what discovery they will make next which will ultimately tear down their longest-held tenets...I mean, science.

Remember, I have a Biology degree and I've never been a member of any church. I didn't used to think about these things the same way when I was younger, but after being bombarded for so many years, I've come to see things closer to way I believe they really are.

This is all in the Politics thread, which seems pretty appropriate to me. In politics, one side says black is white and the other says white is black. Two sides of the same wooden nickel. I just always find it interesting when the pot calls the kettle black (my point about "[they] only care about what they care about".)

Can someone PLEASE!!!!!! tell me why we are in Iraq!! Im still in awe that we are there! Why Why Why??

I think one possible explanation is to put in place a government that does not own the nation's natural oil supply. I seriously hope this is what one of the planned results of the US' involvement.

Here's how a modern government works: The citizens (whether working jointly in corporations or freelancing alone) work and create. The government taxes the citizens and spends the money.

Here's how a government with control of a gargantuan amount of oil works: The government gets money by selling the oil and spends the money.

A modern government NEEDS its citizens, because that's who it takes its money from. For a country like Iraq, the citizens are a burden. If a group of uppity citizens suddenly and mysteriously dies, the oil money gets split among fewer people. Everybody still alive wins!

I'm not trying to be a Bush apologist. This is one possible (and very important) benefit that could come from the US putting in a government. It, and any other benefits (to us or to the Iraqis) of the possibility of a stable democratic capitalist Iraq must be weighted against the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqis from fighting, and temporary uncertainty (and resultant higher prices) of oil, and any other negative results. There's no practical way to measure or trade off these things.

How many dead soldiers are equal to an increase in standard of living of how much in how many years to how many Iraqis? How much uncertainty in the oil market now is equal to how much less of a chance of a terrorist attack how many years from now? These are not rhetorical questions. It's just that I know of no way to even begin to calculate such things. It's trying to measure very different things, many of which can't be accurately measured in dollars, and which will happen at very different times. The important thing to realize, I guess, is that the effects are very real, and that in theory they can be calculated.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buck "Sweetie" McGuck,

Another non-rhetorical question, one which we can all measure in time anyway, is how long before what would be considered a full-fledged civil war breaks out in Iraq?

Yeah. It's kind of depressing sometimes to think that the only available alternative to a murderous dictator is violent chaos. I start to think that the middle east really is a basketcase, and that their inhabitants really are less than people, and that killing each other is inevitable.

The argument against trying to put in a democratic government in the middle east isn't that we're coercing people, or intruding on their rights or anything like that. From a moral standpoint, America is 100% right and the Iraqi government (not to be confused with the Iraqi people) was 100% wrong. The problem is that the sort of government that would be beneficial to both America and the Iraqi people has a pretty small chance of ever really taking hold.

If we could go back in time, we would say that, judged by what we know now, the best course of action on terrorism is to... nuke the entire middle east. Maybe not that extreme, but think about the situation:
[These are the serious statements]
-they're a danger to the rest of the world
-they'll never make the internal changes to become peaceful people
-their institutions are so backward that their countries will never be prosperous
-they'll never take to any government that will make them prosperous (as we will probably find out)
-they will forever be ingrateful for anything positive the western world ever does for them, and will forever hold grudges for anything that they perceive to be negative

Also
[I'm kinda joking here, but only half-joking]
-They're going to kill each other anyway, so we might as well hurry the process along
-Their lives are so shitty that killing them isn't even that cruel of a thing to do

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buck "Sweetie" McGuck,

I sure hope you ARE joking about what you said, because that is the most insensitive thing ever! I'd like to be the first person to respond to what you've said, because I think someone is going to freak out on you. I think that it wasn't really our problem to get involved with, but at this point its like we are giving up the lives of OUR troops to keep those innocent citizens that live in middle eastern countries alive. Very odd situation indeed, if what you are saying is that we should kill them before they end up spending all of our troops and then having an evil terrorist group attack the U.S. and kill even MORE people, I'd completely agree. They are a nuisance and the most simple way to clean up the mess is total destruction, but have some empathy for the poor kids that were born there, you can't really say "tough shit, deal with it" imagine if you were one of the Iraqis that are trying hard to go against whats happening and are completely greatful for the U.S.'s help.

All I'm trying to say is that if there is any chance for them to become a productive country in the world, then we should give it a shot, (of course, thats contrary to my other belief which is that our men shouldn't be dying) its all so complicated I try just to stay quaker-ish.

quote:

Originally posted by Buck "Sweetie" McGuck:
Yeah. It's kind of depressing sometimes to think that the only available alternative to a murderous dictator is violent chaos.

if so, then Hobbes was right...

I have been contemplating a lot recently, if it is right to force democracy onto any country. I am not sure that it is. It is similar to forcing a religion onto an entire country. What the previous Iraqi government was wrong, but I don't see how we are helping any by going in their with troops forcing them into something that is completely foreign to them.

I have heard many morons with stupid opinions lately telling me that the only way for world peace to occur is to "Nuke," as they politely put it, the middle east. Am I the only one offended by this?

Just a couple thoughts...

quote:

If we could go back in time, we would say that, judged by what we know now, the best course of action on terrorism is to... nuke the entire middle east. Maybe not that extreme, but think about the situation:
[These are the serious statements]
-they're a danger to the rest of the world
-they'll never make the internal changes to become peaceful people
-their institutions are so backward that their countries will never be prosperous
-they'll never take to any government that will make them prosperous (as we will probably find out)
-they will forever be ingrateful for anything positive the western world ever does for them, and will forever hold grudges for anything that they perceive to be negative

quote:

If we could go back in time, we would say that, judged by what we know now, the best course of action on terrorism is to... nuke the entire middle east. Maybe not that extreme, but think about the situation:
[These are the serious statements]
-they're a danger to the rest of the world
-they'll never make the internal changes to become peaceful people
-their institutions are so backward that their countries will never be prosperous
-they'll never take to any government that will make them prosperous (as we will probably find out)
-they will forever be ingrateful for anything positive the western world ever does for them, and will forever hold grudges for anything that they perceive to be negative

quote:

Reply

quote:

If we could go back in time, we would say that, judged by what we know now, the best course of action on terrorism is to... nuke the entire middle east. Maybe not that extreme, but think about the situation:
[These are the serious statements]
-they're a danger to the rest of the world
-they'll never make the internal changes to become peaceful people
-their institutions are so backward that their countries will never be prosperous
-they'll never take to any government that will make them prosperous (as we will probably find out)
-they will forever be ingrateful for anything positive the western world ever does for them, and will forever hold grudges for anything that they perceive to be negative

Also
[I'm kinda joking here, but only half-joking]
-They're going to kill each other anyway, so we might as well hurry the process along
-Their lives are so shitty that killing them isn't even that cruel of a thing to do

Does anyone ever do the basic exercise of pretending that you lived in Iraq? How would you feel if people called you sub-human and said that it really isn't that cruel to kill you? I know a lot of miserable people here in the US. Would it make it any less of a crime if someone murdered them as opposed to a jollier person?

I'm afraid there is a sore lack of knowledge about the history of the middle east on this board. A big part of the reason the middle east is the way it is is because of the actions of the US, England, and other colonial powers. For decades, the US and other rich countries installed dictators in power and kept them in power through diplomatic and military support. Everyone should know that the US was highly supportive of Saddam Hussein throughout the 80's when he was carrying out his worst massacres. The US gladly armed Saddam, even giving him chemical weapons. It was only after he disobeyed US orders that everyone here suddenly proclaimed him the reincarnation of Hitler. All of this stuff usually gets suppressed pretty well in the US press for obvious reasons. Here's a good article on the subject.

To understand why middle eastern countries are a "danger to the world" you need to take a look at what the US has done over the years to these countries. Aside from supporting Saddam Hussein, the US has collaborated with oil companies to insure that most of the profits from their oil goes to US oil companies. Saudi Arabia is a good example. It has a quite high per capita income, but is still rife with poverty, not to mention t