Howard Baker passes

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Shoving down throats....let's see...

Schools still having prayers, still have icons up? Yep. Then when someone points out its against the rules, panties get in a wad.
Laws being introduced to allow discrimination due to religion? Yep.
Christian groups who insist that the first amendment only applies to christians? Check.
Christians fighting to have non science taught in science class, while fighting to ban science?. Indeed.
Business owners trying to dictate health coverage? Sure enough
Christian icons continuously placed in public areas, but said christians don't want other groups to have the same ability? Of course.

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

Well played Robert. You say respond to the first but addressed an issue she didnt bring up. Then you ignored every other point she brought up. Then you dip into the absurd. She flat out crushed you. You may as well just typed two random characters on the page and pressed enter.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'll just respond to your first one. Having a moment of silence where students can do anything from reflecting on the day, to praying (any religion they want), to daydreaming is hardly shoving anyone's religion down anyone's throats. You have it upside down. When states have ruled that a moment of silence is totally legal, it is the atheists whose panties get in a wad and take it to court and sue. God forbid some students exercise their right to think about whatever they want during the moment of silence. Some of them may actually pray silently. We can't have that.

The only ones in this case who want to control people's thoughts are the atheists. Maybe we should take it a step further. Would you be in favor of giving students a lie-detector test to make sure that they never thought about God during the school day? To think silently about God while you are on school grounds is a violation of the Constitution. LOL.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...constitutional

yeah, except i wasn't talking about moments of silence, which are fine as long as they are 'neutral'. i'm talking about prayer being lead (such as at my kids school, so glad they're all out) because people in these areas are far from dc, and thinks 'everyone' is the same. they're counting on people not complaining, not pointing it out.

the aclu successfully fought for a student to pray before eating her lunch. it's not an issue at all, except where people ignore the laws and rulings that is.

many christians think that because they are the majority, they have the right to dictate continuing to have religious icons on display in schools (see the recent case in the northeast), in contradiction to long standing rules regarding things like that. they also think majority rules (not true) and that 'natural law' is the first rule we all must follow. all that's incorrect, the constitution rules, and is there to protect even the most hated minority group-in this case, atheists.
if some amongst us didn't believe in rocking the boat, we'd still have english accents and sing god save the queen.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is your definition of "shoving it down people's throats? For example, sometimes we will see an athlete win a competition, and in the post-competition interview he says he "wants to thank his lord and savior, Jesus Christ". Do you have a problem with that?

"Shoving it down peoples throats"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby...ry?id=24364311

[OldDog]

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' rubbers is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

As long as you are Pro-choice and support your local Planned Parenthood, then certainly, you have the right to say that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

all that happened is HL will probably get an exemption, like the little sisters of the poor...the employees will still get their contraception, as they should. that way you don't have to pay for pregnancy, which is far more expensive than a pill.

and the suit only covered four methods of contraception.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, me not being forced to buy other folks' morning after pill is "shoving it down people's throats."

O brave new world.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Wonder what wise man said that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well played Robert. You say respond to the first but addressed an issue she didnt bring up. Then you ignored every other point she brought up. Then you dip into the absurd. She flat out crushed you. You may as well just typed two random characters on the page and pressed enter.

I only responded to the first one because it was an easy one to respond to and I didn't feel like spending 2 hours researching all the other ones. With regards to the first one, it was a straw man argument in the first place. Christians don't try to force anyone to do Christian prayers in schools. That is nonsense. What credible (or not credible) Christian has suggested that schools should force christianity on the students?

The only issue with regard to prayer in schools is whether a moment of silence is ok. There is no issue about forcing christianity on the students because nobody is in favor of that. Anyone who claims there is such an issue is completely mischaracterizing the facts. There definitely is an issue about a moment of silence. Atheists are against it and they have gone to court over it numerous times. The issue is whether a moment of silence is constitutional and whether being in favor of it is an attempt to try try to impose your religion on people. I can debate you guys on the issue of a moment of silence. I can't debate you on straw man issues that don't exist.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, except i wasn't talking about moments of silence, which are fine as long as they are 'neutral'. i'm talking about prayer being lead (such as at my kids school, so glad they're all out) because people in these areas are far from dc, and thinks 'everyone' is the same. they're counting on people not complaining, not pointing it out.

the aclu successfully fought for a student to pray before eating her lunch. it's not an issue at all, except where people ignore the laws and rulings that is.

many christians think that because they are the majority, they have the right to dictate continuing to have religious icons on display in schools (see the recent case in the northeast), in contradiction to long standing rules regarding things like that. they also think majority rules (not true) and that 'natural law' is the first rule we all must follow. all that's incorrect, the constitution rules, and is there to protect even the most hated minority group-in this case, atheists.
if some amongst us didn't believe in rocking the boat, we'd still have english accents and sing god save the queen.

Ok, then I agree with you. I am in favor of a neutral moment of silence. Many atheists are not and have gone to court over it.

I'm not in favor of forcing a specific religion on students and I don't know any christians that are either.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Ok, then I agree with you. I am in favor of a neutral moment of silence. Many atheists are not and have gone to court over it.

I'm not in favor of forcing a specific religion on students and I don't know any christians that are either.

Wouldn't wanting to teach creationism in public schools be forcing your religion on students. Many Christians want that and have gone to court over it.

[Danzig]

that's intelligent design, that's different.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Wouldn't wanting to teach creationism in public schools be forcing your religion on students. Many Christians want that and have gone to court over it.

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

Rupert's debating strategy

1. Completely ignore the question or point made
2. Claim not to be an expert in something in as an excuse to not answer
3. Completely go off in a new direction
4. Post a link to support his position always his links are "unbiased" and from "experts"
5. Go to step 1

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you admit that many in the "progressive movement" have an anti-Christian bias?

With a statement like that, the onus is actually on you to prove that "many in the progressive movement have an anti-Christian bias" not on me to prove they don't. You know, not proving a negative and all that. Or, if we flip it around: Do you admit that many in the "conservative movement" have an anti- blacks, women, Latino(a)s, Asian, immigrants, Islam, Judaism, atheist, vegan, environmentalist, Wiccan, gay/lesbian/transgender bias?

With regard to the "progressive movement", saying that many in the movement have an "anti-christian bias" is a kind way of putting it. A more accurate way of putting it is that many of them despise christians. They believe it is justified because they falsely believe that christians "hate" all kinds of groups. So they are just hating back. But all their "hate nonsense" is exactly that, nonsense. Accusing people of "hate" is their propaganda.

That's some big assuming you're doing about the "progressive movement." (whatever that is) Back it up with proof. And "I think" and "probably" don't count as proof.

According to them, if you are against gay marriage, that means you "hate" gay people.

If you oppose gay marriage, don't get gay married. Any other action you take, such as trying to block same sex couples from gaining the right to get married, is pushing your religion on people who don't believe it. That's not loving the sinner, or whatever crap excuse is used to justify denying people their rights.

If you are against affirmative action, then you must "hate" minorities. They tried to accuse the guy from Duck Dynasty of "hate" but it didn't work because any unbiased person who heard the interview will tell you that there was nothing "hateful" in the interview.

That's a very safe thing for you to say, as no one, other than Drew Magary, heard the Duck Dynasty interview; it was an article printed in Esquire about Magary's day with the family. I know, because I actually read it. And I recall people accused him of being racist and homophobic. Which, reading the interview, I certainly took him to be. In addition, I found him to be willfully ignorant of American history. Here's the link:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...phil-robertson

And an addendum piece by Drew Magary:
http://deadspin.com/the-devil-and-ph...sty-1485612609

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

all that happened is HL will probably get an exemption, like the little sisters of the poor...the employees will still get their contraception, as they should. that way you don't have to pay for pregnancy, which is far more expensive than a pill.

and the suit only covered four methods of contraception.

Hobby Lobby has no problem buying their stock from China. China, land of forced abortions. The Green family are such, such hypocrites.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...g-nation-China

No word yet on whether they plan on instituting an exemption from the employee discount on knitting needles.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hobby Lobby has no problem buying their stock from China. China, land of forced abortions. The Green family are such, such hypocrites.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...g-nation-China

No word yet on whether they plan on instituting an exemption from the employee discount on knitting needles.

i know, right?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

you need to study up on scientific method, it might help you in understanding how scientists do their 'thing'.
and i'm sorry, but that most definitely is a partisan article. if you want to learn about science, you need to get info from respected scientific sites.

scientists don't take science on faith, that stuff is studied, tested, tested some more. obviously we still have a lot to learn, but that doesn't mean what's been learned so far is 'full of holes'.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't really know much about the whole scientific debate. From what I've heard, there is a lot more science that supports the evolution theory, but I've heard there are plenty of holes in that theory too. I think a lot of the stuff that they were teaching has turned out to be totally false. Didn't they used to claim that we evolved from monkeys? Now they know that humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths

Anyway, I don't know exactly what the science is now claiming. But as I said in the last paragraph, I think a lot of the evolutionary theories we were taught as kids have turned out to be false. So if there are hugs gaps in the evolution argument, is it reasonable to teach an alternative approach, in addition to evolution? I'm not sure. I'd have to hear the latest scientific arguments from both sides.

No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.

Here is an article that says that everything we've been taught about evolution is wrong. This is not a partisan article either. So if everything we're being taught is wrong, should we just continue to teach that and exclude alternatives?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...on-genes-wrong

I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No evolutionary scientist has ever claimed humans descended from monkeys. Darwin himself never claimed that and he's the one of the pioneers of the theory of evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...9/darwin.myths



No, in fact, what I was taught as a kid about evolutionary theory continues to be supported by what is being added to that body of knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is the one theory explaining our planet's vast biodiversity that has stood up to, and continues to stand up to, rigorous scientific testing and exploration. If another theory comes along that stands up to the same level of testing for 150 years, I'm sure it will be taught in future schools. At present, no such alternative explanation has stood up to the scrutiny the theory of evolution has.



I read the entire article. I'm not sure you did, Rupert, as that is not AT ALL what that article is saying. At all.

yeah, people say scientists say we descended from monkeys, but i've never heard a scientist say that.
apparently tho at some point in time, we had a common ancestor.

if anything, as more has been found, it's only strengthened the theory of evolution. they found another fossil in the last week or two of an animal a scientist had predicted. like halley and his comet, the guy got it right.