| Are you glad at this victory? |
| Yes. We must keep our traditions and our historical ideals from the beginning of the United States strong. |
|
37% |
[ 6 ] |
| Somewhat. |
|
18% |
[ 3 ] |
| No. Religion has NO place in government. |
|
43% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
 Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:12 am |
|
I love how Link and Defiant completely missed the point of my post.
Link? I wasn't calling you an idiot for having no Religion or being an athiest or whatnot. Thats fine by me. Im saying its stupid to say we are pushing our beliefs on you when athiesm, which IS a beliefe, is being pushed on us by getting rid of it in Government and social life. Thats not fair for us now is it?
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:17 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | I love how Link and Defiant completely missed the point of my post.
Link? I wasn't calling you an idiot for having no Religion or being an athiest or whatnot. Thats fine by me. Im saying its stupid to say we are pushing our beliefs on you when athiesm, which IS a beliefe, is being pushed on us by getting rid of it in Government and social life. Thats not fair for us now is it? |
Missed? No, ignored. I dont care about your argument anymore.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:22 am |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Missed? No, ignored. I dont care about your argument anymore. |
Ok.....
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:35 am |
|
That sounded a little harsh. Basically, at this point, we have given our points, in great detail. We have disagreed, and there isnt too much more to come from it. I just let it go at this point.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:01 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Or even if it's just the leaders or the major voices of your party and viewpoint, such as the stuff said by Kennedy, Kerry, Franken, Moore, and Daschle, can allow for generalizations. |
No, you cant. A few people do not speak for an entire group. You are wronger than youve ever been before. |
Those are the LEADERS OF YOUR PARTY. And I only named a FEW. "such as" being the key words. You would have Pelosi, Boxer, and many more, too. And Libs that are on Hannity and Colmes (aside from Colmes, as he's a decent Lib, like many are) and Hannity's radio show, and at my school--mostly the same. I don't see you complaining when others generalize about Conservatives, which HAS happened, and it IS fine if we say "Liberals this" or "Secularists that" because the leaders of and major icons of and many people of the ideal fit this. To say "Liberals this" does not NECESSARILY mean ALL Liberals, anyways. Heck, FDR was a Liberal--for his time--and that was fine.
| Founder wrote: | I love how Link and Defiant completely missed the point of my post.
Link? I wasn't calling you an idiot for having no Religion or being an athiest or whatnot. Thats fine by me. Im saying its stupid to say we are pushing our beliefs on you when athiesm, which IS a beliefe, is being pushed on us by getting rid of it in Government and social life. Thats not fair for us now is it? |
Good point. And Defiant, you should still listen to his arguments 
Now, again, no one answered my question: Who was the first man to bring a chaplan into the White House? Hint: It may surprise you.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:50 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | I love how Link and Defiant completely missed the point of my post.
Link? I wasn't calling you an idiot for having no Religion or being an athiest or whatnot. Thats fine by me. Im saying its stupid to say we are pushing our beliefs on you when athiesm, which IS a beliefe, is being pushed on us by getting rid of it in Government and social life. Thats not fair for us now is it? |
I really didn't miss the point seeing as how I just stated a fact about your post not even trying to touch on the point it was trying to make.
You called Aithiests and Liberals Hypocritacal, call us stupid, and a few other things. I was posting about your comments, not your point. How you couldn't see that I have no idea.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:53 pm |
|
I think im justified in calling you hypocrites in this sense. Because what you are suggesting is hypocritical.
You two can keep dancing around the issue but you don't have an answer do you? Its easier to yell about my words rather than debate my point. Got cha....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:25 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | I think im justified in calling you hypocrites in this sense. Because what you are suggesting is hypocritical.
You two can keep dancing around the issue but you don't have an answer do you? Its easier to yell about my words rather than debate my point. Got cha.... |
Yes, and you are right. When they say that they don't want religion forced upon people, but then they want athiesm to be forced upon people...I'd say that's hypocritical.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Founder wrote: | I think im justified in calling you hypocrites in this sense. Because what you are suggesting is hypocritical.
You two can keep dancing around the issue but you don't have an answer do you? Its easier to yell about my words rather than debate my point. Got cha.... |
Yes, and you are right. When they say that they don't want religion forced upon people, but then they want athiesm to be forced upon people...I'd say that's hypocritical. |
Ah, but that is where you are both wrong. If you had read my posts instead of dancing around points, calling us "stupid" and "hypocritical liberals" You would have seen my answer.
First off, you cannot call me a hypocrite. Why? Let us look at the definition;
Hypocrite - [n] - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
While others may fit the description, you have no right to call anyone something you seem to have no idea about.
Second, Science is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Science is The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
There is no connection of the two.
Thye answer is simple, quit whining to the schools. Complain to the department of Education. Try and get signatures and write up a bill to eliminate seperation of Church and State.
Until then quit sitting around and doing nothing, which IS hypocritical
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Founder wrote: | I think im justified in calling you hypocrites in this sense. Because what you are suggesting is hypocritical.
You two can keep dancing around the issue but you don't have an answer do you? Its easier to yell about my words rather than debate my point. Got cha.... |
Yes, and you are right. When they say that they don't want religion forced upon people, but then they want athiesm to be forced upon people...I'd say that's hypocritical. |
Ah, but that is where you are both wrong. If you had read my posts instead of dancing around points, calling us "stupid" and "hypocritical liberals" You would have seen my answer.
First off, you cannot call me a hypocrite. Why? Let us look at the definition;
Hypocrite - [n] - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
A hypocrite is ALSO a person who preaches one thing and does another. You, and others like you, are saying that religion should be put out, when you are also saying that we shouldn't even aknowledge religious opinions and thoughts about creation, etc. That is hypocritical.
While others may fit the description, you have no right to call anyone something you seem to have no idea about.
Second, Science is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Science is The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
There is no connection of the two.
You make good points there. However, when you fail to aknowledge other ideas of creation, etc, that's not right. That is including and preaching athiesm. And yes, there are connections between the two.
Thye answer is simple, quit whining to the schools. Complain to the department of Education. Try and get signatures and write up a bill to eliminate seperation of Church and State.
Until then quit sitting around and doing nothing, which IS hypocritical |
YOU can quit being a jerk! I am doing something, such as giving speeches pushing my view that a SECULAR society is bad, etc. And I am speaking my opinion here. THAT is fine. I can whine to the schools if I want to, and I can whine to the Department of Education. Simply, I do. But the Department of Education is Republican, and if they tried to do what they would do and stop this OVERWHELMING Separation of Church and State issue, the courts would swat it back at them. Teachers can take stands, and that is what some are doing.
However, mind you, I do NOT want the law to be changed, I just don't want it to be interpreted in such an extreme way. I want it to be pretty much strict to the Constitution.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:49 pm |
|
and with resorting to the name calling and finger pointing you have just invalidated your argument.
Look throughout this entire topic and show me where I have said that religion should be put out or we shouldn't acknowlege religious opinions.
You wont find anything.
Because I have never said anything like that. What I have said is that due to the strict policies and peoples beliefs it cannot be taught. These days, anybody can sue anybody over any stupid little thing. I have also never said that creationism and others shouldn't be taught. I said they cannot because the school can be sued and teacher fired.
Stop twisting my words like Michael Moore.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:54 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | and with resorting to the name calling and finger pointing you have just invalidated your argument.
Look throughout this entire topic and show me where I have said that religion should be put out or we shouldn't acknowlege religious opinions.
You wont find anything.
Because I have never said anything like that. What I have said is that due to the strict policies and peoples beliefs it cannot be taught. These days, anybody can sue anybody over any stupid little thing. I have also never said that creationism and others shouldn't be taught. I said they cannot because the school can be sued and teacher fired.
Stop twisting my words like Michael Moore. |
Good. You acknowledge Michael Moore 
Sorry, I apologize, that's how I interpret it. I see your posts as being won of saying "don't let other views be taught." Would you disagree with that concept? Allowing at least REFERENCE of religious ideas as to this, then? If you answer it STRAIGHT UP, then I'll take that as your opinion.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
I would want it referenced, but unfortunetly As told to me by a Science teacher,
"We cannot even reference subjects like Creationism without being fired and the school sued. They seem to consider it the same as teaching it."
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:59 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | I would want it referenced, but unfortunetly As told to me by a Science teacher,
"We cannot even reference subjects like Creationism without being fired and the school sued. They seem to consider it the same as teaching it." |
So you would want it referenced. Then fine. We are in agreement. However, I think that other views should be referenced, regardless, and again, say above the list, "This is a list of other ideas as to how the universe was created, evolution, etc. These ideas were NOT taught, but this is just a reference for students as to other ideas." That's it. Nothing is wrong with that, and if people see that as offensive, that's bull crap. They sue for that, the school should fight back hard. "ALL IT WAS WAS REFERENCE! And above the list was a message that said, 'This is a list of other ideas as to how the universe was created, evolution, etc. These ideas were NOT taught, but this is just a reference for students as to other ideas.'
What's wrong with that? It could be faught and one easily. Unless, of course, you live in California, because that's just a stupid state now. Getting a teacher fired for teaching the Declaration of Independence...only in California.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:55 pm |
|
You'd have to refrence every single opposing viewpoint for every single subject. That seems silly, otherwise it would be interpreted as having been favouritism towards creationism; by only referencing that particular subject. You can find opposing viewpoints on every single topic.
Hehe, I have this,
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:24 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | You'd have to refrence every single opposing viewpoint for every single subject. That seems silly, otherwise it would be interpreted as having been favouritism towards creationism; by only referencing that particular subject. You can find opposing viewpoints on every single topic.
Hehe, I have this, |
Just have it for this. Now, I am a believer in Intelligent Design--that a greater being had to have designed and set this into motion. But not in Creationism. However, I want other views to be expressed in this case.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:26 am |
|
Fine, then. Favouritism towards your theory of "intelligent design." In would still be interpreted as favouritism towards religion if you only allow refrence towards other viewpoints for this one subject.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:27 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Fine, then. Favouritism towards your theory of "intelligent design." In would still be interpreted as favouritism towards religion if you only allow refrence towards other viewpoints for this one subject. |
No, no, no. I'm saying TEACH evolution, as a THEORY, and then reference other viewpoints. I'm not saying favoritism towards intelligent design, etc.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:30 am |
|
I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you'd have to allow refrence for every opposing theory for every subject. The point in science class (or any other class, for that matter) is to present the most plausible and scientifically sound view.
Why should this one subject be treated specially, for religion?
If you allow refrence for one subject, you'd have to allow reference for all.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:37 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you'd have to allow refrence for every opposing theory for every subject. The point in science class (or any other class, for that matter) is to present the most plausible and scientifically sound view.
Why should this one subject be treated specially, for religion?
If you allow refrence for one subject, you'd have to allow reference for all. |
Not necessarily, but I'd except that. And to your first part, that's the POINT! That is why you would only have to REFERENCE other views. (Good points, though, btw)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:48 am |
|
We don't have enough time to learn science as it is . . . last year in Grade 9 science, we spent 7 days on the biology unit because our student teacher had been finishing up our previous unit and was running out of time. In French class both last year and this year, we did not come even close to covering the required material. I'm supposed to be able to learn the conditional tense this year, but unfortunately she'll only be able to lightly touch on the subject with us . . . 
I think the entire education curriculum needs a serious overhaul. I dislike our semester system (although I'd prefer it to eight classes per day), because it's tough especially for courses such as Math. And we need more money--they should have gone with ING Direct. 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:40 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Ah, but that is where you are both wrong. If you had read my posts instead of dancing around points, calling us "stupid" and "hypocritical liberals" You would have seen my answer.
First off, you cannot call me a hypocrite. Why? Let us look at the definition;
Hypocrite - [n] - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
While others may fit the description, you have no right to call anyone something you seem to have no idea about.
Second, Science is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Science is The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
There is no connection of the two.
Thye answer is simple, quit whining to the schools. Complain to the department of Education. Try and get signatures and write up a bill to eliminate seperation of Church and State.
Until then quit sitting around and doing nothing, which IS hypocritical |
First off all your post is giant blunder about hypocrites and blah blah blah. Since its too complicated for some...will skip over all this crap.
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't talking about science or school. Your talking about a completely different subject. I am talking about Religion in Governement and social life.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Ah, but that is where you are both wrong. If you had read my posts instead of dancing around points, calling us "stupid" and "hypocritical liberals" You would have seen my answer.
First off, you cannot call me a hypocrite. Why? Let us look at the definition;
Hypocrite - [n] - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold.
While others may fit the description, you have no right to call anyone something you seem to have no idea about.
Second, Science is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Science is The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
There is no connection of the two.
Thye answer is simple, quit whining to the schools. Complain to the department of Education. Try and get signatures and write up a bill to eliminate seperation of Church and State.
Until then quit sitting around and doing nothing, which IS hypocritical |
First off all your post is giant blunder about hypocrites and blah blah blah. Since its too complicated for some...will skip over all this crap.
What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't talking about science or school. Your talking about a completely different subject. I am talking about Religion in Governement and social life. |
Basically, you're talking about secularism (the almost total absence of religion in public life, society, and government, not merely separation of church and state.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
I noticed that my question was never answered. Who was the first President to place a Chaplain in the Congress? Hmmm??? Anyone? Guess not.
And the answer?
Jeopardy Style:
Me: I'll take Religion in US Government for 500, Alex.
Alex: This man was the first President to place a Chaplain in the Congress. This man was also, supposedly, quite agnostic and a Founding Father.
Me: Who is James Madison.
Alex: That is correct.
No one could get that right...figures. Heck, no one was willing to put forth an answer. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
Well, I guess nobody knew.
Look what those crazy Catholics in Spain have done,  I smell excommunication in the air,
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
