User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 52

  1. #11
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually that would be a step up in many ways.
    Care to extrapolate?


    __________________________________________________

    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  2. #12
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starsiege View Post
    Care to extrapolate?
    Sure, much of the Medieval philosophical tradition is more compatible with modern science, since they were far more flexible in their interpretations of Scriptures than later thinkers.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Sure, much of the Medieval philosophical tradition is more compatible with modern science, since they were far more flexible in their interpretations of Scriptures than later thinkers.
    Umnn...like burning scientists at the stake, and stifling scientific research?
    and lets not even get into the witch trials..the inquisition and the Holy wars



    Some of the Changes in the New Texas Textbook "reform" include


    (copy pasted)


    Texas Textbook MASSACRE: 'Ultraconservatives' Approve Radical Changes To State Education Curriculum

    1
    Thomas Jefferson? Who's that?

    Removing Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum's world history standards on Enlightenment thinking, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

    2
    No church-state separation

    "Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state."

    3
    All religions equal under Constitution?

    The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”

    4
    U.S. not 'democratic'

    Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

    5
    Preserving McCarthy's legacy

    "Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include 'how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.' The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States."

    6
    'Conservative resurgence'

    "They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about 'the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.'"

    The Dallas Morning News noted that "high school students will learn about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s – but not about liberal or minority rights groups."

    7
    'Transexuals and who knows what else'

    "Board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, objected to a standard for a high school sociology course that addressed the difference between sex and gender. It was eliminated in a 9-to-6 vote.
    She worried that a discussion of that issue would lead students into the world of 'transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else.'"

    8
    'Capitalism' becomes 'free-enterprise system'

    "Members voted to polish up references to the American 'free enterprise' economic system and removed most mentions of 'capitalism,' a word that board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said has a negative connotation."

    9
    Reagan yes, Kennedy no

    "Board members also rejected requiring history teachers and textbooks to provide coverage on the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while the late President Ronald Reagan was elevated to more prominent coverage."

    10
    Hispanics died at the Alamo?

    With all five minority members dissenting, the conservative-dominated panel voted 10-5 to endorse the proposed standards after rejecting an effort to specifically mention that Tejanos were among the fallen heroes of the Alamo.

    "I am very distressed," said Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who sponsored the unsuccessful amendment. "Until we are ready to tell the truth about history, we don't have a good history or social studies textbook."

    11
    It wasn't slavery – it was 'the Atlantic triangular trade', according to the conservatives on the Texas education board


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post

    In 1982 Congress passed Public Law 97-280 acknowledging that "Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States." This authorised then President Reagen to proclaim 1983 as "Year of the Bible".

    So there.
    Lol, most of the founding fathers were agnostics at best, if not outright atheists, Even Ben Frank

    and yeah...so the congress passed this under reagen...so what?
    Most of this so called "teachings" can be found in Greek philosophy that predates Christianity. and the remainder, can be traced back to pre christian, pre OT Sumerian and Babylonian legends and stories, with a good measure of Egyptian philosophy thrown in.

    I know its too much to expect politicians and religious nuts to be knowledgeable about history though. they would rather say that the world is but a few thousand years old...and Satan put the fossils there to "trick us"


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    "Of law there are different kinds. All, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1. Divine. 2. Human laws. The descriptive epithets employed denote, that the former have God, the latter, man, for their author....

    ...Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both."

    Works of James Wilson


    This excerpt is from his 1791 lectures where he explains the reasoning behind the newly adopted Constitution. It is recorded that George Washington, our first president, attended these lectures.

    I couldn't stop laughing when i came to that sentence, even though i barely kept a lid on it while reading the previous statements by Wilson. This guy has no idea what science is!.



    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  4. #14
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starsiege View Post
    Umnn...like burning scientists at the stake, and stifling scientific research?
    That didn't actually happen believe it or not. A rational understanding of God and the world was the prevailing philosophical line of thought during this period, as exemplified by St. Thomas Aquinas. Whatever stifling of scientific research there was occured in the early Medieval period(aka 'the Dark Ages'), but that was more of a result of the collaspe of the Roman Empire than through the Church's work. In actuality, much of scientific work was preserved during that era by monks. This helped lay the foundations for the Renaissance of the 12th and 13th centuries. One long-term development of that era was the development of the university as a learning institution. Jean Gimpel has even compared technological developments of the High Middle ages to that of the Industrial Revolution. So the old stereotype of the Middle Ages has long been discounted by scholars.

    and lets not even get into the witch trials..the inquisition and the Holy wars
    Well I would have no problems debating those issues, but it would probably derail from the main topic here - which is whether quotas for women in government is a good idea.

    Lol, most of the founding fathers were agnostics at best, if not outright atheists, Even Ben Frank
    Even if so, it's still quite irrelevant. The predominant influence of Christianity on American culture and thinking really cannot be questioned, there's simply too many sources and scholarship out there. Even the Enlightenment was largely derived from Calvinism. Anf furthermore, my citation of James Wilson shows the influence of Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity for example on the philosophical basis of the Constitution.

    and yeah...so the congress passed this under reagen...so what?
    So basically it's an official recognition on the part of our government of the Biblical influence. It certainly wasn't the first time this happened. Congress plenty of resolutions before acknowledging the same basic thing.

    Most of this so called "teachings" can be found in Greek philosophy that predates Christianity.
    Yes, Greek philosophy was a major influence on the developments of Christianity. So what's your point?

    and the remainder, can be traced back to pre christian, pre OT Sumerian and Babylonian legends and stories, with a good measure of Egyptian philosophy thrown in.
    And your point is what exactly?

    I know its too much to expect politicians and religious nuts to be knowledgeable about history though.
    Judging from your posts, I would say that it's you who is ignorant of history.

    they would rather say that the world is but a few thousand years old...and Satan put the fossils there to "trick us"
    I'm religious and I dont believe that.

  5. #15
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post

    I'm religious and I dont believe that.

    I'm a conservative protestant and I don't believe it either.

    Certainly anti-intellectualism has had a strong grip on protestants in the last century or so (the fact that the last protestant supreme court justice is retiring this summer is testament to this). But, the ignorance of adherents to a belief system does not make the belief system itself idiotic.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #16
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starsiege View Post

    I couldn't stop laughing when i came to that sentence, even though i barely kept a lid on it while reading the previous statements by Wilson. This guy has no idea what science is!.

    Oh for a second I thought we were having a serious discussion here, my mistake! :rolli:

  7. #17
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    I'm a conservative protestant and I don't believe it either.

    Certainly anti-intellectualism has had a strong grip on protestants in the last century or so (the fact that the last protestant supreme court justice is retiring this summer is testament to this). But, the ignorance of adherents to a belief system does not make the belief system itself idiotic.
    The anti-intellectualism that has griped much of the churches, Evangelicals at least, is largely a recent development in wake of the secularization of higher education. At the beginning of the 20th century, we had highly esteemed religious scholars like H. Richard Niebuhr. Going back further, many of the Protestant reformers were staunch advocates of a thorough education. Martin Luther, for example, condemned parents who neglected their childrens' education as "despicable dogs".

  8. #18
    Senior Member Daedalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That didn't actually happen believe it or not.
    it did


    A rational understanding of God
    The only "rational understanding", about god can be that there is no proof of one. anything else is irrational, and an oxymoron.



    Even if so, it's still quite irrelevant. The predominant influence of Christianity on American culture and thinking really cannot be questioned, there's simply too many sources and scholarship out there. Even the Enlightenment was largely derived from Calvinism.
    Is it Highly relevant cos it would mean instead of saying America was 'predominantly influenced" by Christianity, it was in fact influenced by the Greeks, The Babylonians, the Sumerians and the Egyptians, to name a few.


    I have no issues with accepting the fact that America was influenced by the Greeks and the rest...after all, we should not be confused by fancy labeling
    but then again...these historical facts will be anathema to those frogs in the well that claim America was influenced by Christianity. or maybe for those who advocate it, ignorance is indeed bliss. as Ciper from the Matrix quips


    Anf furthermore, my citation of James Wilson shows
    He lost all credibility when he claimed religion is a science.
    moving on..

    So basically it's an official recognition on the part of our government of the Biblical influence. It certainly wasn't the first time this happened. Congress plenty of resolutions before acknowledging the same basic thing.
    And people once "officially recognized" that earth was the center of the universe. We laugh at them now.

    Yes, Greek philosophy was a major influence on the developments of Christianity. So what's your point?
    Scroll up



    Judging from your posts, I would say that it's you who is ignorant of history.
    quite interesting




    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Oh for a second I thought we were having a serious discussion here, my mistake! :rolli:
    Re-read that post of mine again. I cant do anything if you have a hard time comprehending it.Its pretty explicit that my post is about Wilson.

    Btw..yes...if someone tells me that religion is a science, i will laugh.
    Extraverted - 25 Introverted - 75
    Sensing - 0 Intuition - 100
    Thinking - 63 Feeling - 37
    Judging - 63 Perceiving - 37
    ______________________________________


    It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.

  9. #19
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starsiege View Post
    The only "rational understanding", about god can be that there is no proof of one. anything else is irrational, and an oxymoron.
    The irony of course being that your statement is quite irrational, especially in light of the fact that rational arguments for God's existence go back to Plato at the very least. The official term for this form of thought is Natural Theology. Whether you agree with those arguments or not is another matter.

    Is it Highly relevant cos it would mean instead of saying America was 'predominantly influenced" by Christianity, it was in fact influenced by the Greeks, The Babylonians, the Sumerians and the Egyptians, to name a few.
    It was through Christianity that America received those influences, so basically you're not making much of an argument here.

    these historical facts will be anathema to those frogs in the well that claim America was influenced by Christianity.
    Quite the contrary actually, as I just remarked.

    He lost all credibility when he claimed religion is a science.
    moving on..
    Credibility for what? As the author of our Constitution?

    BTW, "science" in the classical sense is defined as the search for truth. So religion does fall under that category. Galileo even labelled theology as "queen of the sciences"*.

    And people once "officially recognized" that earth was the center of the universe. We laugh at them now.
    That was the accepted scientific theory at the time, untill an ordained priest named Copernicus proposed otherwise.

    Now when am I going to see an actual argument from you?

  10. #20
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Dear oh dear ... misquoting the Constitution while arguing a point about the Constitution? Sloppy.
    You're right; that is sloppy. My mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    No "separation", no "state." Only no "establishment of" religion and no prohibition of "the free exercise thereof."

    It is certainly not a statement that religion "shouldn't factor into law." That would be horribly limiting, I would think: "Hrm, it is unconstitutional to outlaw murder, because there is a prohibition against killing in the Ten Commandments, therefore murder is a constitutional right." Yes, the argument is absurd, but if "religion shouldn't factor into law" is a first principle, it is a logical conclusion. Unless of course, that isn't really what you meant, in which case you should choose your words more carefully.

    That part of the first amendment was specifically intended to prohibit a national church (as was the case in England). It has other implications that have since been explored, but none are as far-reaching as you would imply.
    There are plenty of good reasons for murder to be illegal regardless of what religion thinks about it. Just because something religion doesn't like is illegal doesn't mean religion was the basis for making it so; we can quite easily justify keeping murder illegal without using any sort of religious argument or basis for that law.

    But if that means the state should be impartial toward religion, doesn't that mean there should be no laws that favor any one religion over any other? This seems to imply that laws may in fact agree with the tenets of any given religion (or may not), just that religious belief should not be one of the criteria for designing said laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    As for
    I believe the "establishment of religion" part is talking about not creating a national church. It is good and fair to interpret the spirit of the meaning as "and will make no law that will effectively establish a religion, all the while professing not to," but that reasoning can only go so far before effectively establishing a official state "religion" of atheism/agnosticism. The state should be impartial with respect to religion, not effectively outlaw religion in all but entirely private contexts. That is where the debate lies.
    Agnosticism doesn't really count as a religion, imo. How does saying that religion shouldn't factor into law suggest that we should outlaw religion in all but private contexts? I don't believe that; I just think the state should avoid making laws that are based directly on religious belief (with no clear non-religious reasoning for them) or clearly favor any one religion over any other, and that the phrase, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" suggests this pretty clearly.

    For instance, the state should not make a law that wearing blue shirts is illegal simply because popular religion X believes it is immoral. This doesn't necessarily mean the state can't make a law prohibiting the wearing of blue shirts if some valid non-religious reasoning can be given to support it, but religion can't be the reason for it.

    Make sense?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 155
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 12:41 PM
  2. Ideological Makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By Jonny in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:11 AM
  3. What Is The Future Of The United States?
    By highlander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM
  4. Separation of Church and State
    By G-Virus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 03:22 AM
  5. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO