Jump to content

an American in Texas

Members
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by an American in Texas

  1. Ken Miller is not an atheist. He's a devout Christian (Roman Catholic). He is also a high-regarded professor of cellular biologist at Brown University. I'm not an atheist. I'm a devout Christian (Methodist). Philip Johnson is a lawyer, not a biologist. Michael Behe is a tenured professor of biochemisty, but his scientific reputation is so bad that his department has put up a disclaimer of his views on its website. He was also forced to admit (in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case) that his version of ID isn't science. You can't even construct an appeal to authority that does
  2. Nobody who thinks pure chance drives evolution should express an opinion about it. Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Get thee to a library, 2ignorant4U! You might start with Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Leigh
  3. YAUG: "You say justice is an all encompassing value judgment. I say justice is very simply, fairness. By this definition, eternal torment is compatible with justice. It is perfectly just for God to punish a man eternally for rejecting salvation. After all: 1. God created man and gave him life. 2. God sustains man. 3. God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man. The only unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ as your Savior from the penalty of sin. Therefore, in answer to your question, eternal torment serves the highest value, justice." Guest, there are no words to express how e
  4. The sheep are a product of 2dum2live's fevered imagination. Actually, I'm in computers and am the CIO of a construction company. I have no truck with sheep . . . or with sheeple. Leigh
  5. What nonsense. Remember, we all HEARD THE TAPES. We know very well what was said in the classroom, and also what tripe has been spouted by those of your ilk on this board. Besides, your opinions ARE idiotic and sick. Leigh
  6. All you right-wing idiots seem to forget the historical background of the Kool-aid jibe. Jim Jones, Jonestown, religious fundamentalist loonies -- ringing any bells yet? I've seen it used on FreeRepublic and on Daily Kos. As a witty riposte, it's just . . . lame. It's used only by those who have no cogent argument to make and who rely on name-calling instead. Leigh
  7. Gavin, thank you so much for replying to Bryan. I'm not thanking you for sounding trouncing him (although you did), but for trying so hard to engage him and teach him something in the process. You must be quite remarkable in the claassroom. I wish I could see you in action. Bryan's head is hard, but perhaps the seeds you've planted will someday bear fruit and he will take off the self-imposed blinders of religious fundamentalism. It's such a pity that a bright intelligence like his is being wasted in the service of foolishness. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas
  8. an American in Texas

    Dear God

    Dear Concerned, Your argument fails on two points. The first is that the Amish school was explicitly a private religious school, so the kinds of group prayers and devotionals I infer you would like to see were, in fact, being done. The second is that God is entirely welcome in any school, public or private, whose students choose to pray during the school day. No one will stop them. Teachers and staff are also free to pray as they will. The school staff can't specify or lead prayer for them as an exercise in organized devotion, however! We go to church for organized devotional activities
  9. Well, folks, there it all is. Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself. Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity. I say it is. Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment. I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment. Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes. Leigh
  10. an American in Texas

    Please !

    First, let me say that I agree with your post. The only point I'd like to make is that Bryan does not represent the whole of Christendom. Many Christians, if not the majority, reject the fundamentalism of the Religious Right. And most American Catholics reject the Church's position on birth control. We don't get as much press. Maybe we don't say it loudly enough. Or maybe our beliefs aren't outrageous enough to attract the media's attention. My mind isn't "convoluted by Christianity." I think Bryan's mind is convoluted, not by Christianity, but by Christianism, sometimes known as Chris
  11. an American in Texas

    Please !

    Huh? First, we should all step back and recognize that the Framers very intentionally did NOT use the word God in the Constitution or Declaration. Jefferson used a term from Deism, "Creator", instead. Bryan seems to equate the two, but it's clear that the language was deliberately chosen to be as vague and nonsectarian as possible. Bryan, is your argument that we Americans don't recognize the primacy of these documents? That we reject them? Do you really believe our nation's JUDGES reject them? Do you have one shred of PROOF (not just your fanciful extrapolation) of this ridiculous cl
  12. an American in Texas

    Please !

    Fine. But what's wrong with using the American worldview, rather than any religious sect's? You know, the worldview that's well-described in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law? That seems to be Paul's goal. Paul doesn't seem to be promulgating any particular religion. If he were, surely we would be able to define what his religion actually is. As far as I can tell, he's advocating that schools teach, and more importantly, PRACTICE American values. Or maybe not hypocrisy at all. It seems to me he's being consistent in insisting that public institution
  13. Well, just to point out the obvious yet again, Paul and his family are taking a lot of hits from people like you, just because they believe it's important to defend the Constitution. I too wish that this would come to trial soon. The outcome is not in doubt; a more egregious case of proselytizing would be hard to find, and the evidence is unmistakable. I have a new interest in the case, because a bill has been introduced here in Texas to require that all school districts offer a course on the Bible, using the Bible itself as the text. This last clause is a transparent attempt to ensure tha
  14. Patrat just dislikes me, folks. And while I appreciate the defense, Stixx, we'd really do better to ignore him. He probably won't go away, but we shouldn't waste our time on him. Because, really, what can we possibly say to someone who thinks that calling a middle-aged mother of four "gay" is a witty comeback? Obviously he's a bigot -- for civilized people, "gay" is not a slur. We'll never be able to teach him to run with the big dogs. He's just not equipped in temperment or intellect. Leigh
  15. Huh? This post is largely incoherent, Yet Another Unidentified Guest. It would help a lot if you'd refrain from using the pronoun "this" several times in every sentence. We can't tell what the antecedent (reference) for "this" is. Example: You searched Yahoo, 411, etc., for an outpoken guy. I'm guessing this Vic fellow (?) Then, "this guy" (Vic? Paul? David?) would do anything to keep this (the proselytizing? the whole flap? Matthew's skirt?) quiet. And what does Whitewater have to do with it? Now, maybe I've missed some posts, but this is all clear as mud to me right now. I can't
  16. Our congregation includes Democrats, Republicans, and many independents. How many of each, I can't say, because oddly enough (to you, perhaps), we spend more time talking about Christ, His kingdom, and our responsibilities as His disciples than we do talking about partisan politics. Leigh
  17. Yes, I do regret my intemperate language. I had hoped that KOTW might censor that one, since my internal censor failed. Hasty language in the heat of anger is (one of my) great faults and is always a mistake -- not to mention unChristian! Leigh
  18. They'd be happy to see that some of us, at least, "get it." The Constitution's framers worked hard to enshrine the principle of freedom of religion in our country's highest Law. Whether they were, or were not, Christians themselves is really beside the point. It is true that some were overtly deists. Others, for example John Adams, were devout Christians. But regardless of their personal religious beliefs, they did agree that the new government should be separate from, and distinct from, religious observance. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the purpose of the first amendment is to
  19. Patrat, you don't have a clue what it means to be an American, do you? You know nothing about the foundational principles of this country. The "experiment in democracy" just passed you by, didn't it? What I meant (as was clear to everyone with an IQ above that of brussels sprouts) was that we would lose that which makes us uniquely and proudly the American heirs of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. I think you understand that, but couldn't resist the urge to make a D**bA** post using the word Koolaid. You continue to be the most ironically named poster on the board, surpassing
  20. Apparently Patrat doesn't take communion. Somehow, I'm not surprised . . . We drink grape juice, not Koolaid, at communion, you moron. Leigh
  21. Bryan "metaphysics at some level" hardly equates to the blatant preaching of fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a classroom. It's you who misunderstands the relationship between "the democratic process", by which I infer you mean "rule of the majority", and the Constitution. You don't like it that judges can overrule legislators (or school board members) who trample on the rights of minorities. Too bad; that's the way our country is set up. And at the moment that's no longer true, we cease to be Americans and become the subjects of a theocracy. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas
  22. Oneellama, I agree, your post was very good indeed. I have only one small nit to pick, and that's with "It's high time the 'moderates' underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of 'tolerance.'" No kidding. But what do you think I'm doing here, if not this? They're not getting any support from me, tacit or otherwise. On the contrary, I'm here and elsewhere, posting and protesting away, giving money, and talking it up! And I've not been alone; in the last couple of days, for example, a new poster named Fog
  23. Bryan, that link currently points to "Confrontation at Concordia," also a very interesting video, but not on global warming. Apparently Brightcove changes their lineup frequently. I think you're referring to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This Youtube link might work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It aired on Britain's Channel 4, not on the BBC (they rejected it). It's been extensively debunked already (google it), but here are some links: http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the...stions-answered http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/ http://inth
  24. God Save Us From Christians names a number of prominent Christianists: Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, (I omit Jesse Jackson because I know nothing about his theology). And by the way, s/he missed the most important one of all, James Dobson, and one other prominent one who immediately comes to mind, Rick Scarborough. Let's get this straight -- these are not MY leaders, nor do they lead Christians with whom I commune. These people are Christians, no doubt, but their political activities, like those of the rest of the religious right, are more
  25. As the only self-professed practicing Methodist on the board, I can tell you that those universities affiliated with my denomination have no problem matriculating and graduating good students from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. They needn't be Methodists or even Christians. So I'm not sure why Drew's choice of college is relevent here. I can also say that most members of my denomination would have a real problem with Mr. P's proselytizing in class, and not just because the theology he was teaching is not the same as ours. If he'd been a good Methodist preacher riffing on our own
×
×
  • Create New...