Wednesday, 3 October 2007

One Reason Why I'm a Secularist

Christian Interference in Public Education & Everything Else

Educational Research Analysts:


Excerpts of the FAQ page from Mel Gablers' Educational Research Analysts: An Original Contribution to the Christian Conservative Intellectual Renaissance

Q: How do your ratings impact textbook sales so much?
A: Local schools respect our work. We absolutely document all we say. Texas itself cannot match our thoroughness. (We took eight months of quality time to critique five 1999-copyright high school World History books that averaged 1000 pages each.) Our academically rigorous standard textbook review criteria correlate with the state curriculum. We offer valuable info free.

Q: Where does Texas rank in national influence on textbooks?
A: Texas state-adopts textbooks at all grade levels, California only through Grade 8. Texas therefore most influences high school textbooks, and is second only to California in influencing Grades K-8. Other states should always demand the Texas edition of a book if there is one; and if there is no Texas edition it is probably an inferior book, since publishers submit their least offensive books in Texas, because Texas has "watchdogs."

Q: You no longer testify at the Texas State Board of Education annual textbook adoption public hearings. Why?
A: Lowering our voice and working under opponents' radar gets better results.

Q: When evolution is considered a fact in America's modern scientific community (evolution has been seen in action over the years, and has yet to be logically and scientifically disproven), why is it required to be treated as a theory in biology textbooks?
A: Textbooks' treatment of evolutionary theories is about the art of persuasion, not the science of biology.

The claim is that because genetic variation has been observed, increases in net genetic complexity have occurred. But though the mechanism for genetic variation may be mutation, there is no proven mechanism for increased net genetic complexity, which evolution requires. Rhetorical stealth phrases in textbooks mask this scientific weakness. They define evolution as "change over time" or "descent with modification," that is, as two very different concepts - observed genetic variation (antibiotic-resistant bacteria, insecticide-resistant insects) and unobserved increases in net genetic complexity (i.e., new genes) - the former supposedly validating the latter. Yet with no mechanism for the appearance of more complex kingdoms, phyla, and classes, evolutionary theory cannot explain biodiversity.

Q: Who are the analysts chosen to go over the textbooks in question, and what qualifications have they?
A: This credential mongering is an ad hominem tactic to dodge incon­ven­ient criticism. If points raised are valid, what matters the source? Why stoop to personalities rather than judge ideas on their merits?

Source: Questions and Answers

If people are so concerned about secular education, not "liberal" education as many like to point out, then they should send their kids to a Christian school and convince others to do the same.
Quit influencing public textbooks to reflect your ideological viewpoint when not all parents agree with it.

By the way these are the same people, the Gablers', who caused the brujah over the "Evolution is just a theory" sticker on textbooks. The Gablers' are have since died but their legacy lives on (outlined further in this post).
Our Mission:
We are a conservative Christian organization that reviews public school textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas. Our reviews have national relevance because Texas state-adopts textbooks and buys so many that publishers write them to Texas standards and sell them across the country.

Our unique 46 years' experience gives us expertise equal to or beyond that of the education establishment itself in all phases of the public school textbook adoption process, and in that our standard review criteria spell out what public school textbooks often censor on certain topics.

Publishers market textbooks — and many teachers select them — based on convenience of their teaching aids. Unlike them, we review textbooks for academic content only. Parents, teachers, and school board members can all profitably use our materials.

Subject areas of concern include:

* Scientific weaknesses in evolutionary theories
* Phonics-based reading instruction
* Principles and benefits of free enterprise
* Original intent of the U.S. Constitution
* Respect for Judeo-Christian morals
* Emphasis on abstinence in sex education
* Politically-correct degradation of academics

Source: About Educational Research Analysts

Texans for Better Science Education:

TBSEF is a non-profit organization set up to assist teachers, parents, administrators, and others obtain information and resources relevant to better instructional materials and methods for teaching better science.

All 'workers' are currently volunteer. We do ask that you consider a donation that will assist in our obtaining videos and other materials for distribution to teachers and others.

We invite you to explore our website, particularly the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), and consider receiving our free, no-spam newsletter. Mostly, we trust you will think of a teacher, administrator, or others involved in teaching children and recommend them for materials.

Thank You.

Source:
Texans for Better Science Education Foundation [home]

-

Texans for Better Science Education is a group of concerned Texas citizens who support the right of all students and teachers to learn about both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theories free from censorship and intimidation, and as required by existing Texas law.

We oppose efforts by some groups to censor the teaching of evolution by preventing students from learning about scientific criticisms of the theory. We are appalled by the bullying tactics adopted by groups who try to smear anyone who disagrees with them as extremists or uneducated religious radicals. In reality, these groups are the real extremists as evidenced by their use of intimidation, censorship, character attacks, name-calling, and unsubstantiated charges to stamp out legitimate debate.

We do want to take well known scientific errors out of textbooks and in their place present well known scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theories and hypotheses.

You can help us now.

1. Help spread the word to your teachers and students that in Texas, teaching weaknesses of evolution is not only allowed, it is required.

2. Help locate errors in the book that you teach from or your child is learning from. Though many textbook errors were removed during the adoption process, many more remain.

3. Obtain and use supplemental material to teach students and teachers the profound scientific weaknesses now evident in neo-Darwinian thinking.

4. Sign up to support the teaching of both strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory in public schools. We invite all citizens who agree with this to sign our electronic petition - it is NOT necessary for you to have formal scientific training to be involved with this effort.

5. Call or write your State Board of Education (SBOE) member (see right column).

6. Write letters to your local papers and local school board supporting putting both strengths and weaknesses in the textbooks as required by Texas law, and

7. Contact the publishers themselves, particularly if you are a teacher, administrator, etc. in the school system, and let them know that you would WELCOME the addition of weaknesses being put in the books. (The publishers are concerned that they will not be able to sell books if they treat the science honestly and include both strengths and weaknesses. They are getting much pressure from the Darwinian thought police to leave the dogmatic 'evolution-as-fact' approach in the books.)

Source: About TBSE

The Discovery Institute:

Steven Buri is executive director of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. The think tank is a prominent opponent of Darwinian orthodoxy and has found many instances in which it says Texas biology textbooks are inaccurate or misleading. It also pushes school districts to have textbooks that teach the controversy over creationism and evolution.

Source: ReligionLink - Texas textbook vote has national implications

About Discovery (excerpt):
"...The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders..."

Source: Discovery Institute

Atheist Blogroll Searches: "Discover Institute", Gabler, "Public Education", Texas Education

What I take away from this is that there are Christians out there that seek to influence our public educational system with an agenda to insert the worm of religion into the minds of ALL the children. Never mind that they might be of another faith or non-faith. Never mind that the parents of these children really won't mind Christians meddling with their children's education. Wanna know why? Because it's all for the betterment of humanity that everybody be a good little Christian, so let's start with the children. We all know how malleable they are. So curious and willing to believe what the grow-ups tell them to believe.

Oh, yeah. I know where some of the fundies and the Bigot are going to say: "Evolution is a religion". If this crops up, please Modusoperandi; put thier metaphorical foot in their mouth for them as I have trouble arguing this point. Also the whole "atheism is a religion" argument. It's not. Sure, call it a belief, but don't call it a religion. There's a big difference and they don't teach how to BE an atheist in public schools. If anything public schooling (I would hope) would teach children how to be open-minded and TRULY curious about learning. Not just one particular ideology that Christianity teaches.

I will say this about evolution: the theory does not seek to disprove a god or gods. It just so happens that the theory flies high in the face of Creationism. This isn't a problem with evolution. It's a problem with Christian doctrine.

Having said that, there are plenty more Christians I think who agree more with the theory of evolution than the literal interpretation of the creation myth. It's just that some Christians are so hell-bent and flabbergasted with the notion of evolution that they bang the drum ever so loudly. You are few but you find the biggest drum and bang it so loudly that it's utterly irritating. You spread your lies while banging this drum and speak with a silky voice when you get peoples attention. You obfuscate (often unknowingly) that what you believe is right for all. And that those who don't agree with it are unworthy of your Gods graces. Unfortunately, I think that you have friends in high places who seek to institute a veiled theocracy. This is the goal of Christianity in the current climate of the United States.

You are wrong. Freedom. Does that mean anything to you? Liberty? Will there be a day when a Christian is forbidden to marry an atheist? It's shameful right? If such a thing is so shameful then I guess it should be forbidden and unlawful because it goes against the Christian god. Who likes to point out that retards and imbeciles are not to approach the alter. Could this explain the past offenses of people locking up mentally disabled persons; subjected to horrendous living situations? Could we explain the rise of secularism in the rethinking of how we handle the mentally disabled? After all, these people were treated in a way (in the past) that really does fall in line with Christian scripture. In otherwords do your best to "heal" them, but in essence they are unworthy of approaching the sacred altar of Christ. They are/were unworthy. These "old" state mental institutions invariably carried this very "attitude" out in their treatment of the mentally disabled.

Among other very pertinent things, I would like to point out that religion has infused some of humanity with ideas that do not fall in line with the rest of us who choose to have a different outlook. This is the conundrum. I've said that: Go ahead and pray at your leisure. Go to your church if you feel the need. Express your religious views to others, a dialogue if you will. This is the clincher though (at least for me): DO NOT SEEK TO INFECT YOUR IDEOLOGY INTO PUBLIC POLICY THAT WILL INFECT ME AND MY FAMILY, AND OTHERS WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH IT EITHER!!!

29 comments:

Shaun said...

A link to my comment on another post. I am honored. I didn't even know you could do that with blogspot. Thank you. look at that, first comment too Oh, please delete this, mighty god of the blog.

Larro said...

I don't delete comments.

tina said...

First of all, of course I will agree with everything you said, I am atheist. I don't care one iota if someone goes to church, prays in their own home, just don't try to sneak your religion into public schools and politics, of course it's already there, but there are watchdog groups also.

Secondly, is Larro the mighty god of the blogs? Ummm....I could have sworn that Beast was! :)

concerned citizen said...

larroYour reference to secularism has given me pause to ponder on this:
Because of Christianity's stubborn insistence to stick with it's primitive world view & inability to mind it's own business so to speak, secularism has had to pick up the slack.

Where would the U.S. be without secular education?

Where would the U.S. be if us secularists didn't always work to shore up the separation of Church & state?

Sound(reasonable & rational) science & the freedoms in our own Constitution are constantly under attack by the primitive fundimentalist Christian mind-set.

BEAST said...

Religion is a human sickness. A product of man's depraved mind.

A cursory read of the obnoxious bible will tell you the origins of this imbecilical work of the immoral man.

Beast

Modusoperandi said...

from the textbookreviews.org link "On ideological issues like environmentalism, feminism, or constitutional interpretation, our reviews show textbooks' shortchanging conservative policy options."
Ah, yes.
Because environmentalism is really an ideological issue ("Sure, I'm ain't supposed to swim in the river my granpappy swam in because it's an odd color and it fizzes now, but them uppity college boys from the coast say it's polluted, so I'll do it anyway just to show them commie, fag-lovin', war-dodgin', school-goin', 'merica hatin', book readers that they're wrong." {splash!} "Ah! My skin!" {gets out of water} "See? It don't do me no harm. An' my pastor says that we's got domin-yin over things anyways. Who you gonna listen to, the gub'ment or the Lord?"),
feminism is bad (as it encourges women to move out of biblically-prescribed roles, like bride, wife, spouse, housewife, and mother, and encourages the bitches to use their pretty little heads instead of staying home and cooking the man of the house his damn dinner),
and the constitution has been "hijacked" by "activist judges" (except when they're conservative judges doing the "hijacking").


/me sticks tongue in cheek.

I think do that, however, that you're overstating how bad Educational Research Analysts analysms are:
I did some searching, and their Biology I recommended text, Biology: The Web of Life, is being butchered by people who must hate good conservative science:

Don't Buy This Shallow, Obsolete Book
You know with header title like that it's going to be a hatchet job.
"Is the material in this book meaningful and current? Is it the kind of material that a high-school student should be learning in a biology course today? For The Web of Life, the answers are no and no." See? What did I tell you.
These unprofessional reviews by unqualified unprofessionals...let's see, David L. Jameson, is completely unqualified. Typical.
No, wait, he's Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Houston.
I guess he just hates G_d. He's just a professor. Gilligan's Island had one, and he couldn't even science them out of there.
Well, maybe the next one down will be more conservative-friendly
Beavis and Butt-Head Do Biology
Ah.
At least this author, William J. Bennetta, is merely a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences. You know how batty Califorians are.
Granted, my survey was less than scientifc...

Modusoperandi said...

Reviews courtesy of http://www.textbookleague.org/95sf-aw.htm, by the way.

Modusoperandi said...

Preemptive bootening (not a real word) "Evolution is a religion"

The Theory of Evolution is far from perfect. If it was perfect, it would be the Law of Evolution.

That being said, it's the best theory we've got so far, and "God did it" continues to not be an answer. Only continued inquiry will fill in the blanks. Saying "God did it" historically (and continues to be) roughly the equivalent of "Stop looking". A scientist saying "It's a theory" means "Oh, goody! I've got more to learn! Wooo!".

I like how one of the quotes from the Mel Gablers' Educational Research Analysts: An Original Contribution to the Christian Conservative Intellectual Renaissance said that it's the rationalists who use "ad hominem tactics" against the creationists (Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle). "Credential mongering" isn't ad hominem anyway, it's argument from authority (again, Pot meet kettle). Maybe a little poisoning the well too (Oh, I see you've met kettle...).

That being said, the argument from authority isn't a logical fallacy, and therefore actually bears some weight, when the authority in question knows what the fuck he's talking about (Hey, I swore. /me puts buck in curse jar). Is "Evolution is" any better than "In the beginning..."? Heck yes.

One uses the Earth and both its current and former inhabitants as evidence, the other relies on divine revelation, which is like you made it up, but instead of you, it's God making it up. This is why the text of holy texts is, for the most part, firmly rooted in the era in which they were written. Other old literature generally has the same "rooted" feel, but it doesn't have God's eternal stamp of approval on it, so while Kipling's The White Man's Burden just comes off as imperialistic and racist, it's not God-sanctioned imperialism and racism. The same, sadly, cannot be said of the Tanakh, or the NT, or the Koran, etc.

Commercial break
An Original Contribution to the Christian Conservative Intellectual Renaissance
My irony meter started to smoke. The warranty just expired too. Typical. Am I the only one who is reminded of nineteen eighty-four?


Preemptive bootening, the director's cut (with 2 1/2 minutes of new footage!) ("bootening" is still not a real word)
Pharyngula covered the Gablers, with handy links to "reality-based" rebuttals of common anti-evo arguments (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/gabler_gone_but_it_makes_no_di.php. This link won't work...how do I make long links "wrap", anyway? *sigh*. Go to Pharyngula, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, and put "Gabler gone, but it makes no difference" in the search box. Did you hear me, Shaun? Go to Pharyngula, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, and put "Gabler gone, but it makes no difference", with the quote marks, in the search box).


Preemptive bootening, episode II: The Bootening (still not a real word. Twice) "Atheism is a religion"

No. If it was, it'd be tax exempt.


We now return you to our regularly scheduled bootening (still still not a real word)

...and then it moves on to a particularly sticky point with me...Emphasis on abstinence in sex education. What they really mean is "Sex ed without the sex. Or the education". Virtually every study so far shows that kids who've taken abstinence-only courses wait longer before having sex (typically delays of 12-18 months. This is a good thing. I don't think they're ready for it. I wasn't. Luckily I was a nerd, so it never came up. It still doesn't. *sniff*), but they also show that when they eventually do have sex, less use phrophylactics/the pill/etc. Also, some studies show an increase in anal intercourse, a dangerous alternative in the first place (after all, that's where poo comes from) but, in combination with lowered condom usage it's fatal in the modern world of AIDS (something about thin skin, rectal tearing and other ooky stuff. Even with a condom it's dangerous, as they don't do well in that environment, but it's still safer with than without).

Essentially they've just traded off a few pregnant girls (and a bunch who are having sex but aren't getting knocked up) now for a bunch of them later, plus an increased spread of disease.

But the tarts deserve what they get, right? The nasty little whores that kids are...disobeying our Lord leads to His Divine Wrath, and a bun in the oven, or a burning sensation when the tramps take a piss. Or death, even (the wage of sin is death, apparently, which means that sin pays better than the service industry).

In the USA (and it's always about America, isn't it?), over a billion dollars have been wasted in ten years ($176 million alone last year) to help your daughter get pregnant...

I'd write more on this subject, but I already wrote a satire on faith-based sex ed for a comedy wiki, and I don't want to dive back in. To be honest, that one phrase (* Emphasis on abstinence in sex education) brought it all back. I was angry (which doesn't happen all that often) when I was researching the satire and by the time I was finished writing it my hands were shaking so badly that I couldn't even photoshop a picture for it. But I digress.


In closing

The biggest problem I have with religion is that it is should be, rather than is (and not just should be, but absolute should be; no quarter, no give and take, no mercy. Should be is the official is, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and god help the poor bastards that say otherwise).

Don't get me wrong, a little idealism is a good thing. Indeed, it's an ingredient critical to making the bread of a just society rise. The Golden Rule is the yeast. I don't know what the flour is.

When idealism supplants reality, however, people get hurt, deliberately, badly and without remorse. Idealism over reality, whether it be with the backing of the State, God's unchanging, literal Word (KGV only, apparently), or the unholy and corrupting combination of the two, tries to push the square peg of man's is into the round hole of should be, and when that delusional act fails to succeed, it just pounds harder.

Post script
I just spewed coffee out of my nose. I was checking the TV listings, and Left Behind is on. From what I hear, the book is superior (and the book is a creative "reimagining" of another book, that itself is a part of yet another book. Mindblowing! It's like Russian nesting dolls!). Why Preemptive bootening (not a real word) "Evolution is a religion"

The Theory of Evolution is far from perfect. If it was perfect, it would be the Law of Evolution.

That being said, it's the best theory we've got so far, and "God did it" continues to not be an answer. Only continued inquiry will fill in the blanks. Saying "God did it" historically (and continues to be) roughly the equivalent of "Stop looking". A scientist saying "It's a theory" means "Oh, goody! I've got more to learn! Wooo!".

I like how one of the quotes from the Mel Gablers' Educational Research Analysts: An Original Contribution to the Christian Conservative Intellectual Renaissance said that it's the rationalists who use "ad hominem tactics" against the creationists (Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle). "Credential mongering" isn't ad hominem anyway, it's argument from authority (again, Pot meet kettle). Maybe a little poisoning the well too (Oh, I see you've met kettle...).

That being said, the argument from authority isn't a logical fallacy, and therefore actually bears some weight, when the authority in question knows what the fuck he's talking about (Hey, I swore. /me puts buck in curse jar). Is "Evolution is" any better than "In the beginning..."? Heck yes.

One uses the Earth and both its current and former inhabitants as evidence, the other relies on divine revelation, which is like you made it up, but instead of you, it's God making it up. This is why the text of holy texts is, for the most part, firmly rooted in the era in which they were written. Other old literature generally has the same "rooted" feel, but it doesn't have God's eternal stamp of approval on it, so while Kipling's The White Man's Burden just comes off as imperialistic and racist, it's not God-sanctioned imperialism and racism. The same, sadly, cannot be said of the Tanakh, or the NT, or the Koran, or the...


Preemptive bootening, episode II: The Bootening (still not a real word. Twice) "Atheism is a religion"

No. If it was, it'd be tax exempt.


Stuff!
When I read An Original Contribution to the Christian Conservative Intellectual Renaissance my irony meter started to smoke. The warranty just expired too. Typical. Am I the only one who is reminded of nineteen eighty-four?

If "they" get there way, a bunch of courses at school will be much easier, at least. Observe...
''"What's the total of the three interior angles of a triangle, Timmy?"''
''"Um, He works in mysterious ways?"''

Pharyngula covered the Gablers, with handy links to "reality-based" rebuttals of common anti-evo arguments (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/gabler_gone_but_it_makes_no_di.php. This link won't work...how do I make long links "wrap", anyway? *sigh*. Go to Pharyngula, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, and put "Gabler gone, but it makes no difference" in the search box. Did you hear me, Shaun? Go to Pharyngula, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, and put "Gabler gone, but it makes no difference", with the quote marks, in the search box).


We now return you to our regularly scheduled bootening (still still not a real word)

...and then it moves on to a particularly sticky point with me...Emphasis on abstinence in sex education. What they really mean is "Sex ed without the sex. Or the education". Virtually every study so far shows that kids who've taken abstinence-only courses wait longer before having sex (typically delays of 12-18 months. This is a good thing. I don't think they're ready for it. I wasn't. Luckily I was a nerd, so it never came up. It still doesn't. *sniff*), but they also show that when they eventually do have sex, less use phrophylactics/the pill/etc. Also, some studies show an increase in anal intercourse, a dangerous alternative in the first place (after all, that's where poo comes from) but, in combination with lowered condom usage it's fatal in the modern world of AIDS (something about thin skin, rectal tearing and other ooky stuff. Even with a condom it's dangerous, as they don't do well in that environment, but it's still safer with than without) and Al-Qaeda (they get blamed for everything else...I'd might as well credit them with fatal anal intercourse).

Essentially they've just traded off a few pregnant girls (and a bunch who are having sex but aren't getting knocked up) now for a bunch of them later, plus an increased spread of disease.

But they deserve what they get, right? The nasty little whores that kids are...disobedience of our Lord deserves a bun in the oven, or a burning sensation when the little whores take a piss. Or death, even (the wage of sin is death, apparently, which means that sin pays better than the service industry).

In the USA (and it's always about America, isn't it?), over a billion dollars have been wasted in ten years ($176 million alone last year) to help your daughter get pregnant...

I'd write more on this subject, but I already wrote a satire on faith-based sex ed for a comedy wiki, and I don't want to dive back in. To be honest, that one phrase (* Emphasis on abstinence in sex education) brought it all back. I was angry (which doesn't happen all that often) when I was researching the satire and by the time I was finished writing it my hands were shaking so badly that I couldn't even photoshop a picture for it. But I digress.


In closing

The biggest problem I have with religion is that it is should be, rather than is (and not just should be, but absolute should be; no quarter, no give and take, no mercy. Should be is their official is, despite ample evidence to the contrary).

Don't get me wrong, a little idealism is a good thing. Indeed, it's an ingredient critical to making the bread of a just society rise. The Golden Rule is the yeast. I don't know what the flour is.

When idealism supplants reality, however, people get hurt, deliberately, badly and without remorse. Idealism over reality, whether it be with the backing of the State, God's unchanging, literal Word (KGV only, apparently), or the unholy and corrupting combination of the two, tries to push the square peg of man's is into the round hole of should be, and when that delusional act fails to succeed, it just pounds harder.

Post script
I just spewed coffee out of my nose. I was checking the TV listings, and Left Behind is on. From what I hear, the book is superior (and the book is a creative "reimagining" of another book, that itself is a part of yet another book. Mindblowing! It's like Russian nesting dolls!). Why is porn porn sinful, while apocalypse porn is righteous, anyway? Rubbing against people is bad, but rubbing them out is good.

It's like Bizarro world, but with Jesus.

Shaun said...

Your comment's too long again. What was wrong with the sticker? Is it damaging your atheist agenda? It stated a fact, evolution's just a theory. What are you getting steamed for?

Larro said...

Bigot; Read any school textbook and you will find that they already teach that evolution IS a theory.

What for the sticker? According to the content of the books themselves the sticker was irrelevant.

Except for this: the sticker was placed as a tool to fan the flames of the evolution/creation debate. The sticker was NOT placed on the books to outline what is already in those science books; that evolution is "just" a theory. We already know it's a theory. It was put there by people who knew full well it would be removed. So then they could say, "Oh, what do we have here!?"

As if to say that evolution proponents deny that evolution is a theory and indeed a "fact".

This was purposefully done to make it look as if evolution proponents do not consider evolution a theory but instead as a "fact" or the "ultimate final truth" if you will. To most Christians and the evolution opposition, this is what they would like to believe.

The theory of evolution is not like your Creation myth. Your creation myth is set in stone by bronze age sheep herders. The theory of evolution (or any theory for that matter) is not set in stone. This is what makes it so wonderful, even to my layman mind. Any theory is open-ended and peer reviewed. Scientists all over the world study these theories and come up with there own hypotheses all the time.

It's a hard arduous trek up the slope of Mount Improbable.

Larro said...

Mom, there are Christian "watch dog" groups as well...

Yes, I can delete comments if I felt like it (I wouldn't on BEASTS posts though; that would be up to him)
But, I don't delete comments any. I'd rather leave them there so people can see what an ass they make of themselves.

The bigot (apparently) said...

Not the way I remember. It was taught to me as a proven fact, and I believed it for a long time. Anyway, the stickers don't do any harm if they state it's a theory. So what are you jumping up and down for? You scared of the debate?

It wasn't put there because of some Christian conspiracy, you're just saying that cos I said evolution's in the books because of Satan's conspiracy. see, you just take what I say and atheize/evolutionize it and say it back to me.

Larro said...

concerned citizen; I think secularism has had to do more than pick up the slack. It is one of the ramparts by which human rights and civil liberties are defended. Because, (I'm sure you already would agree with this) once the wall of separation of church and state is breached; the defense of civil liberty is laid bare. Look to the Taliban. Look to the House of Saud. Look to the Holy Roman Empire.

I know, I know. Christians and a bigot like to point out the atrocities associated with so-called "atheist regimes" (Pol Pot, Stalin and supposedly Hitler). I only bring this up to preempt any arguments to this affect. So save it for later as I think I am going to blog about this very topic: "Atheist Regimes".

Where would the US be without secular education? That's a post unto itself I think.

I can't say as I do anything to shore up separation of church and state but sit here on my ass bitching about the attacks on it. I've always wanted to donate to such causes, but hell I am one of "them". Yeah, a procrastinator.

I couldn't agree more that Christianity itself stands for impermanence and...frankly, the perpetuation of ignorance. After all most southern states, during the civil war and during the civil rights movement, justified (secretly or blatantly) their resistance to civil liberation of blacks with scripture. It's not an isolated incident, as you well agree I'm sure. One thing about the bible is that anyone can interpret it anyway they see fit. The founders did their damnedest to to make the Constitution unlike the bible. Because the bible is not the law of the land. It contains the moral code of Christians alone. Not to the whole of humanity and especially not the whole of the United States of America.

I'm getting mad. Think I'll simmer down now.

BEAST; Oh, I agree.

Modus; I personally don't think (now that I think about it) that these nutjobs have a snowballs chance. Primarily though I have a problem (see above comment to Bigot) with the very notion that somebody feels the need to undermine secular education in this way. It's under-handed and extremely unacademic to say the least. It's just plain sneaky and slimy. Why don't they just get elected to school boards and the like and help make decisions in that way? Because of this: they are crack-pots (like most or all fundies) and wouldn't get elected for that reason.

Thanks for the "evolution is a religion" preemtive counter-argument.

Curse jar. LOL. How much do I owe?

Creating a hyperlink in a post comment:
Start with: a href="http://whatever.com"
Surround this with the greater and lesser than symbols.
Next write the title to the link immediately afterward, followed by greater than with /a followed by lesser than. I hope that made sense.

Larro said...

CORRECTION: above I said "impermanence". I meant permanence and possibly "the unwavering perpetuation of ignorance".

The product of which is...

Bigot (that thinks Christians should be ashamed of marrying atheists);

I said evolution's in the books because of Satan's conspiracy

Who's the conspiracy theorist?

What's satanic about evolution anyway? Does it say "PRAISE SATAN!"?
No. It doesn't. In essence what you are really saying is that any secular thought that doesn't subscribe to your particular belief system is "evil" and "satanic". Is that all you've got? You think I'm evil and satanic for being a secularist? You think atheism is satanic? Satanists believe in your god, otherwise they wouldn't be satanists dipshit. They probably oppose the theory of evolution as much as you do. Being a satanist requires that they believe that your god created this satan character and that everything else about this creation is described in your precious book of mythology. So they too subscribe to creationism as well. Without this god character, there would be no satan character.

Larro said...

Bigot; BTW. I will refrain from calling you bigot when you give a real good explanation why two consenting adults should be ashamed of being together.

Shaun said...

When they both have other spouses.

Shaun said...

Kinda got you on that one didn't I.

The reason I said evolution is Satan's tool is because when someone fully believes in evolution, it kinda reduces the need for a God, so when they're in that state of confusion, Satan will step in and tag them for hell. He's got his ways.

Am I still a bigot?

Shaun said...

I do appreciate the lack of profanity though.

And I got my blogger account too. cool.

Larro said...

Bigot; No. You didn't "get" me. You don't "get" me at all anyway.

Admit that secularism is "evil" and should be done away with because you believe the separation of church and state is a "bad" thing. Admit that and I'll know where we stand.

Honestly I'm more "tuned" to the issues of this nature than the evolution debate or the existence of god debate. More and more I find myself becoming the civil libertarian than anything else. Wholesomely rounded off with a healthy dose of secular humanism.
The notion of a "real" god has no particular place for me in this regard. Your notion of a god does though. Do you see the difference here? Please say you do, give me a yes or no. Do you see the difference?

Shaun said...

I just read the rest of your comment, Satan will take it whichever way he can get it, satanists, evolutionists, atheists, blasphemers,... he doesn't care if you believe in him, he got a quota to meet.

Now you're using the "is that all you've got" thing against me, at least re word it a bit so it doesn't look like you literally copied what I said to you.

Shaun said...

I do see the difference. You say there's no place for god in your life, I say there is, in mine.

Larro said...

Bigot;
That's very fine and hunky-dory that you feel the need for a god in your life. I have absolutely no problem with that.

That's civil liberty.

If someone ever wanted to take that right away from you then I would be right by your side defending it.

You heard me right.

As much as I have an ideological difference I would not want anybody to take the right away for me NOT to believe what I see fit to believe. It's my right as well as yours. It's your right to be a "bigot". I hold civil liberty as the highest standard to live by. Equality means a great deal to me. I don't want to be considered as a second-class citizen (as George HW Bush has articulated; though that's his right to believe it). By law I should be afforded the exact same rights as the next person, regardless of my ideological or political position. We can all live in harmony, argue and shit-trash each other all we want so long as we recognize each other as equals in the eyes of the law.

This is civil liberty.

If ever (and this is pure speculation) I had some sort of political power; I would NEVER limit your civil liberties, EVER. I like to bitch and complain and throw expletives about, but that doesn't mean I think you should be stripped of your civil liberties.

It means and signifies the affirmation that mine remain intact.

Shaun said...

It doesn't matter what you want Larro, don't you get it. Ever played simcity? God created the universe, you have to listen to him. doesn't matter what you want. You don't understand the idea of God, let me put it this way, intelligent designer. The intelligent designer created you and the universe and everything in between, and the intelligent designer says you have to pray to him, or he'll roast you in his intelligently designed hell. Does it really matter what you want now? Trying to imagine the intelligent designer does not exist isn't going to help. You're like one of those rebels without a cause. Or at least a hopeless cause. There's really no cause to rebel if you think about, his rules aren't so hard to follow.

Shaun said...

Alternatively, if you don't want to be subject to his hell, maybe you should find a way to extract yourself from the universe he created, but Satan's not going to allow you to do that anyway, he's got a quota, remember?

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "...evolution is Satan's tool is because when someone fully believes in evolution, it kinda reduces the need for a God, so when they're in that state of confusion, Satan will step in and tag them for hell."

Wow. You just blew my mind. You just said that Satan uses truth to steal souls.

shaun "(God) created you and the universe...and (He) says you have to pray to him, or he'll roast you in...hell."

Again, wow. You see Allah's rules as made-up, Hinduism as fake and Mormonism as fraud, but you really can't see why this (even if it was true) is so very wrong? This is not a God worth following, no matter the consequences.

Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; why then can't you see just how evil this is?

Worshipping God because He'll send you to hell otherwise is sacrificing your humanity to avoid pain. While I can empathize with that, I can't agree with it.

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "You're like one of those rebels...(with a)...hopeless cause."

And? If the cause is just then it doesn't matter if it's winnable. Your God sounds a lot like Darth Vader, making us the Rebels (I'm stuck in a Y-wing and my R2 unit just spins around in circles. But I digress)

shaun "...his rules aren't so hard to follow."

Going by all the "true christians" that have fallen from the Chrisian Right in the last decade, I'd have to say that they are.

But even if they weren't hard, they aren't right. If it was "love thine neighbour", I'd say, sure (I'd even bring the wine). But it's not. Instead, it's "believe this, or else". That's not love, that's a threat.

Larro said...

Moduoperandi;
"That's not love, that's a threat.

Thank you. I've said this in some way shape or form in a great many posts "here and there".

It's faith though. It's not a threat if you accept Jebus into your life. Never mind that it's a threat if you don't.

Shaun said...

Love, hate, threat, who cares larro, he can do what he wants. his universe, remember? that's just for the argument's sake. I Don't think it's a threat at all. Jesus died for our sins, the only truly sinless man dies for us, and all he wants us to do is to ask him to forgive us. The idea of love itself came from God.

Of course, you don't believe that, you'd rather hope we came from a rock billions of years ago, and love and hate and happiness and all evolved from a rock. and we're going to shrink back into nothing in a few hundred billion more. I truly admire your faith Larro.

Modusoperandi said...

Oops...
Is there a way to edit old posts? I just noticed that mine (04 October 2007 08:17) has bits twice. It's like Katmari Damacy, rolling up all before it.

I thought I was getting deja vu, but it turned out that I had read it before...

Please accept my apologies. "Preview" only works if you're paying attention