Creationism as a Human RIghts Problem.

[gluadys]

Secondly, Socialism is not a democratic system, the American representative republic is.

While I disagree with you about democratic socialism, I am gratified that you identify the American representative republic as democratic.

There is too much of this nonsense about America being "a republic, not a democracy" going around.

 

[gluadys]

How can absolute truth change in a different context?

I can only assume absolute truth does not change. But in human reality we only have opinions as to what constitutes absolute truth. And opinions do change.

What matters is what the Bible says, because the words of God constitute absolute truth.

Not in a public school it doesn't. After all, your Muslim students believe the Qur'an, not the Bible, contains the words of God. They believe the Bible has been corrupted. Your Hindu students believe in the divine wisdom of the Vedas. Your traditional Native American students don't believe God has left a written revelation at all and your Wiccan and neo-Pagan students don't even believe there is one God, but many gods and goddesses. A teacher is not permitted to tell any of these students "Your religion is wrong."

And the Bible says that all unbelievers are going to hell unless they repent and believe in Jesus Christ. So shouldn't our discussion be based on how best to do the will of God, rather than how best to obey the Constitution?

We need to do both. After all the Constitution puts the same limits on other faiths as it does on Christianity and provides the same protections to Christian faith as to others.

My personal opinion is that Christians generally should be much more supportive than they are of religious studies programs in which all major religions are studied comparatively. There is a lot of scope for acquainting all students (not just Christian students) with a fair presentation of Christian belief in such classes. The quid pro quo of course is that Christian students will also get a fair presentation of other faiths. I consider that a win-win situation.

But the Kingdom of God is eternal, and I think we should be setting our minds on it instead of on American law.

I am not just thinking of American law. I am a Canadian myself, and I have personally made the same sort of argument on comparative religious studies to the Ontario Ministry of Education. In fact there is an interdenominational group of Ontario Christians who have organized to support this type of religious education in Ontario Public Schools.

We think it better than having purely secular schools which ignore religion altogether.

 

[gluadys]

We don't call the democratic socialists on this side of the big pond, we call them liberals.

Maybe in the US you do. In Canada we would not think of liberals as being democratic socialists. We see them as distinct ideologies.

Social equality and democracy had been championed by Christians hundreds of years before the word socialist had ever been contrived. Human rights are defended in the U.S. Constitution and the first right of Americans is religious liberty, not the censorship of religious ideology as it is in Europe.

Agreed, mostly.

I can do my own Wikipedia searches thank you and I know what socialism is. I grew up watching what it did to the Soviet Empire and I know what socialists think of religion. Invariably they are grossly intolerant of religious expression in the public square.

Now you are telling me I understand neither socialism or democracy and it's just another unsubstantiated insult hurled with blind indifference.

If you equate Stalinism with socialism, you do not know what socialism is. You might look into the history of democratic socialism in Canada to see the difference. Check out pioneers like M.J. Coldwell, J. S. Wordsworth, Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles. All socialists, all democrats and all Christians.

 

[Dannager]

Been there, done that! Why is it that evolutionists always assume creationists are ignorant and uneducated?

Because, when you've been shown to be glaringly wrong about something, the alternative is far less kind.

It's also worth noting that the claimed overlap between "liberal" and "democratic socialist" must only exist in certain parts of the United States. I've never heard the two terms used interchangeably in my four years of study in the political science department.

 

[mark kennedy]

Because, when you've been shown to be glaringly wrong about something, the alternative is far less kind.

That's the thing about these modernist ideologies, they meander around and it's hard to tell one from the other. As far as being 'glaringly' wrong a couple of Wikipedia links neither contradicts nor disproves what I said previously.

It's also worth noting that the claimed overlap between "liberal" and "democratic socialist" must only exist in certain parts of the United States. I've never heard the two terms used interchangeably in my four years of study in the political science department.

Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise. People with those views are called liberal in the States or don't you know anything about U.S. politics?

I'm still chuckling about that, a socialist characterizing the free distribution of religious literature as a human rights violation. You guys sure do things differently over there, here we consider the free exercise of religion as a fundamental human right, not a violation.

 

[Digit]

*laughs*

I wouldn't mind so much if the science that was taught, was not taught as fact, and if they actually explained the findings more clearly outlining the possibile problems and gaps they have, and informing people of other theories which offer different explanations.

I mean, if we are going to say it's abuse which has to be the most ridiculous claim I've heard so far, then we can fire that back right at you.

Digit

 

[shernren]

*laughs*

I wouldn't mind so much if the science that was taught, was not taught as fact, and if they actually explained the findings more clearly outlining the possibile problems and gaps they have, and informing people of other theories which offer different explanations.

I mean, if we are going to say it's abuse which has to be the most ridiculous claim I've heard so far, then we can fire that back right at you.

Digit

Yes, except why restrict that to evolution? We should also tell kids that out there there are folks who believe that the sun goes around the earth and that the Holocaust didn't happen, and we should present their viewpoints as well, right?

As for democracy. It's really amusing how Anglo-centric this conversation is. In Third World countries, governments legitimized by "democracy" actively oppress and persecute religious minorities. Democracy wasn't even a Christian invention, and it certainly isn't Christian in the part of the world which I came from!

 

[Digit]

Yes, except why restrict that to evolution? We should also tell kids that out there there are folks who believe that the sun goes around the earth and that the Holocaust didn't happen, and we should present their viewpoints as well, right?

As for democracy. It's really amusing how Anglo-centric this conversation is. In Third World countries, governments legitimized by "democracy" actively oppress and persecute religious minorities. Democracy wasn't even a Christian invention, and it certainly isn't Christian in the part of the world which I came from!

Actually I believe that children are under their parents guardianship until they leave home and marry. Until such a time, their parents control their teaching and this to me just reeks of secular societys fear of God.

We don't need to present views of things which we know to be false. Before you start jumping and down in excitement, we don't know that about evolution or Creationism. You may think you do, but I am open-minded enough to know that we do not, and that we simply suspect otherwise. I find my version more agreeable, as you do yours, until secular society can present a complete and truthful account of the unknowns in their idol, science, I see this as a non-issue.

Perhaps you know a great deal about evolution and scripture and can reconcile the two, but the majority of people don't and non-believers use it all the time to discount God and faith in Christ. I see a very real link and danger between the two.

Digit

 

[artybloke]

We don't need to present views of things which we know to be false. Before you start jumping and down in excitement, we don't know that about evolution or Creationism.

Yes we do. Creationism has been proved time after time to be an outright lie, and a fraud. If anyone tried to teach it at a school near me I would oppose it with every bone in my body.

 

[Assyrian]

Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise. People with those views are called liberal in the States or don't you know anything about U.S. politics?

I thought people with socialist vews over there got called 'communist'

 

[Dannager]

As far as being 'glaringly' wrong a couple of Wikipedia links neither contradicts nor disproves what I said previously.

Socialism is not a democratic system

Democratic socialism is a political, economic and social ideal, which advocates socialism as a basis for the economy and democracy as a governing principle.

Wasn't that fun?

Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise.

Okay, stop. You're clearly not very well-versed in the political realm. You've tried to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are a few times now, and this is no exception. It's not funny at all, because people like you go around convincing people of ridiculous things, like no one in American politics claiming to be socialist. The only difference between it and lying is that you haven't put in the effort to actually make sure you're not telling the truth.

I mean, for crying out loud. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been involved in the House and Senate for going on seventeen years now. He was elected to represent Vermont in the senate during the last mid-term elections, and there was a fair amount of media coverage of his promise to caucus with the Democrats despite his independent affiliation - a promise instrumental to their current Senate majority status. Now, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't pay attention to politics to know this. It isn't exactly at the first tier of common knowledge. But to have someone come in here, get uppity about what is and is not democracy, and act like they know more than people who do pay attention is less than kosher.

You don't want people to generalize creationists? You don't think those generalizations represent you? Then show us. Don't act like the rest of the creationists who come in here and make ridiculous, un-researched claims without pausing to consider that they might have gotten it wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

I thought people with socialist vews over there got called 'communist'

I mean, for crying out loud. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been involved in the House and Senate for going on seventeen years now.

Yup. I just did a Google search for Bernie Sanders and communist OR commie
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=GFRC%2CGFRC%3A2007-05%2CGFRC%3Aen&q=Bernie-Sanders++communist+OR+commie&btnG=Search&meta=
Quite a lot of hits there with people who think your socialist representative is a commie.

 

[Dannager]

Yup. I just did a Google search for Bernie Sanders and communist OR commie
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...Sanders++communist+OR+commie&btnG=Search&meta=
Quite a lot of hits there with people who think your socialist representative is a commie.

I long ago gave up being surprised when a significant population of my country is horribly wrong about something and doesn't seem to care. A nasty side-effect of the current anti-intellectual movement is that some people seem to be under the impression that they can misrepresent others and still retain some intellectual dignity.

 

[busterdog]

You know, all this nonsense about whether socialism is also democratic is just a waste of time.

Mark has every right to make his assertion that it isn't. If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world? Is it crazy to say that the right to vote is somehow not "enough democracy" or real democracy where the state restricts rights for private ownership?

The point is that these concepts are quite flexible. The question is not whether he is right -- since he has been accused of ignorance. (If someone questions whether George Bush is a "real" Republican, can you accuse them of ignorance? No.) The question is whether he has a rational basis for his argument, not whether he understands political science.

Really.

 

[gluadys]

If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world?

Democratic decisions about where and how to make large investments sounds fine to me. Especially when most large pools of capital have been accumulated with significant public support in terms of grants, subsidies, tax exemptions, friendly tariffs, government contracts, etc.

When I see corporations stop going cap in hand to government for every handout they can get, I might consider that they have a right to private control of their profits. But as long as my tax money is going to create/sustain their profit, I figure I'm within my rights to have a say in how that profit should and should not be invested.

It is really ironic to see the same CEOs who have their hands so deep in the public purse complain about "socialism".

 

[busterdog]

Democratic decisions about where and how to make large investments sounds fine to me. Especially when most large pools of capital have been accumulated with significant public support in terms of grants, subsidies, tax exemptions, friendly tariffs, government contracts, etc.

When I see corporations stop going cap in hand to government for every handout they can get, I might consider that they have a right to private control of their profits. But as long as my tax money is going to create/sustain their profit, I figure I'm within my rights to have a say in how that profit should and should not be invested.

It is really ironic to see the same CEOs who have their hands so deep in the public purse complain about "socialism".

Well, its a derail. But, I would agree with you that corporate oligarchy can be and often is tantamount to communism and quite undemocratic.

 

[Dannager]

Mark has every right to make his assertion that it isn't.

Yeah, of course. Anyone has the right to be as wrong as they want about something.

If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world?

Democracy is a system of governmental power structure and has nothing to do with a state's economic system. It is simply government by the people. You can have a capitalist democracy just as easily as you can have a socialist democracy. This isn't up for debate. Regardless of how someone wants to misrepresent something, these terms have very precise definitions. You can't just screw around with them and say whatever you want, without running the risk of being very wrong.

Is it crazy to say that the right to vote is somehow not "enough democracy" or real democracy where the state restricts rights for private ownership?

Yes, it is crazy, as democracy simply refers to government by the people and has nothing to do with an economic system.

The point is that these concepts are quite flexible.

No, they aren't. Democracy means what it means.

The question is not whether he is right -- since he has been accused of ignorance. (If someone questions whether George Bush is a "real" Republican, can you accuse them of ignorance? No.) The question is whether he has a rational basis for his argument, not whether he understands political science.

I don't have a problem with that. As I've already pointed out, these aren't things that the average person should necessarily know. I have a problem with the fact that once he was corrected (rather obviously), he decided to become defensive instead of admitting that he misspoke. This is the symptom of a mindset, just as it is when it happens in discussions on evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wasn't that fun?

Yea, I liked the part where you completely ran off topic for your ad hominem argument.

Okay, stop. You're clearly not very well-versed in the political realm. You've tried to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are a few times now, and this is no exception. It's not funny at all, because people like you go around convincing people of ridiculous things, like no one in American politics claiming to be socialist. The only difference between it and lying is that you haven't put in the effort to actually make sure you're not telling the truth.

That's not what I said, what I said was that was that we call them liberals. As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments. The truth is the democratic socialists is as much an oxymoron to me as theistic evolution.

I mean, for crying out loud. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, has been involved in the House and Senate for going on seventeen years now. He was elected to represent Vermont in the senate during the last mid-term elections, and there was a fair amount of media coverage of his promise to caucus with the Democrats despite his independent affiliation - a promise instrumental to their current Senate majority status. Now, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't pay attention to politics to know this. It isn't exactly at the first tier of common knowledge. But to have someone come in here, get uppity about what is and is not democracy, and act like they know more than people who do pay attention is less than kosher.

Typical, of course there are socialists in the U.S. political system but they belong to the left-wing AKA liberal end of the spectrum. Actually, I had never heard of Bernie Sanders and I'm aware that there are remnants of the now defunct Socialist party. So what?

Democracy in America includes the right to the free exercise of religious views. We don't allow religious doctrine to be taught in the public schools but we don't pass laws characterizing it as a human rights violation. By the way, socialists belong to a political philosophy that is colored by and animosity for traditional religion. It is no wonder that religion is attacked in Europe by socialists. The one Senator you pointed to as a socialist is in fact an atheist which is exactly what I would expect.

You don't want people to generalize creationists? You don't think those generalizations represent you? Then show us. Don't act like the rest of the creationists who come in here and make ridiculous, un-researched claims without pausing to consider that they might have gotten it wrong.

I made a passing remark that I found it amusing that a socialist was defending human rights by censoring the free exercise of religion. It's political opportunism, nothing more. I really don't care what kind of superficial generalizations and baseless assumptions you make in your rhetorical theatrics. It neither impresses me nor does it speak well of your worldview.

You have deliberately sidestepped the point I made about the free exercise of religion being the first right of Americans. That is a tradition going back to the Puritan Whigs and the Protestant Reformation. Democracy as a political idea was well established long before Socialism ever came along. The pretense that they must defend democracy from religion is ridiculas. The shear absurdity of creationism being some kind of a human rights violation is yet another example of the lengths modern Liberalism will go to further it's political and social agenda.

 

[busterdog]

Yea, I liked the part where you completely ran off topic for your ad hominem argument.



That's not what I said, what I said was that was that we call them liberals. As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments. The truth is the democratic socialists is as much an oxymoron to me as theistic evolution.



Typical, of course there are socialists in the U.S. political system but they belong to the left-wing AKA liberal end of the spectrum. Actually, I had never heard of Bernie Sanders and I'm aware that there are remnants of the now defunct Socialist party. So what?

Democracy in America includes the right to the free exercise of religious views. We don't allow religious doctrine to be taught in the public schools but we don't pass laws characterizing it as a human rights violation. By the way, socialists belong to a political philosophy that is colored by and animosity for traditional religion. It is no wonder that religion is attacked in Europe by socialists. The one Senator you pointed to as a socialist is in fact an atheist which is exactly what I would expect.



I made a passing remark that I found it amusing that a socialist was defending human rights by censoring the free exercise of religion. It's political opportunism, nothing more. I really don't care what kind of superficial generalizations and baseless assumptions you make in your rhetorical theatrics. It neither impresses me nor does it speak well of your worldview.

You have deliberately sidestepped the point I made about the free exercise of religion being the first right of Americans. That is a tradition going back to the Puritan Whigs and the Protestant Reformation. Democracy as a political idea was well established before the Socialism ever came along. The pretense that they must defend democracy from religion is ridiculas. The shear absurdity of creationism being some kind of a human rights violation is yet another example of the lengths modern Liberalism will go to further it's political and social agenda.

You have just been charged with, not aberrant sematics, but with being uneducated, studid and clueless about civics 101. I think that is called respect for YEC views. That's probably enough of that.

 

[Mallon]

As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments.

Been to the YEC subforum lately?