|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Smelling The Coffee: 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hello Buz, are you nice and comfy in your utopian dream-world where there are no Christian terrorists? Sorry to burst your bubble...
Can you cite any mainstream media, including Fox which has covered any of the stuff you cited to any extent in the past six months or year? How about the day before yesterday?
quote: BBC News - Uganda reports killing LRA commander Abudema in CAR Note the section I bolded at the end there. Those atrocities were committed by Christians who claim to be on a Holy mission from God, the very same God you're so keen on. They would still be murdering, torturing and raping in the name of Jesus today if they weren't on the run from the Ugandans. Or would you prefer an example from closer to home? Since you asked, how about a little Faux News?
quote: TERRORISM | Fox News The killer, Scott Roeder, was another of your poor persecuted Christian fundies. Yep, you guys are so savagely persecuted that you can't even walk into a church and murder any member of the congregation you disapprove of. What is America coming to, eh? Anti-abortion group the "Army of God" called Roeder an "American hero". There are some Christian terrorists out there. You are in denial is all. Are there as many Christian terrorists as Muslim terrorists? No. Are there as many Christian terror attacks as Muslim terror attacks? No. Are the Christian attacks as successful as the Muslim attacks? No. So what? What do you want, a medal? You don't get special credit for not murdering quite as many people as the Muslims. Islam stands out as being clearly the most ignorant, destructive, regressive and dangerous religion on Earth, but Christians who imagine that their shit doesn't stink too are living in a dream world. If given a choice between taking a bite out of two big shit sandwiches, I would chose the one with the least shit in it; that doesn't mean though, that it's not still full of shit. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Buz, still hiding out in your fool's paradise I see.
Hi Granny. I thought you were above this nonsense. And I thought you were above lying for Jesus. Actually that's not true; I knew you were going to engage in more dishonesty, as did everyone else apparently.
First you cite a country engaged in war between two factions Wrong. You are revealing the depths of your ignorance.
quote: Source; We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State The US State Department categorises the LRA as terrorists. Are you saying that they are wrong? That kidnapping children and forcing them to murder their own parents before swearing (on a Bible) loyalty to the LRA is somehow not terrorism? Uganda is not at war. They are fighting an anti-terrorist campaign across three nations. How this fails to count as international terrorism is beyond me.
Because there happened to be a couple of non-fundamentalist (as per the Christian book, the NT) nutcases. Apart from the fact that the above is not a complete sentence, you seem to be taking refuge in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Do you really imagine that's going to impress me? Or anybody? Grow up man. Here are the words of one of the LRA leaders, Vincent Otti;
quote: I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but I think that man is a Christian. Oh, he's got an eccentric interpretation of scripture all right, but he is just as keen on is Bible as you are Buz.
If you people care to get rational we can move on. Phat was alluding to a global problem which applied to fundamentals of religion, i.e. religious fundamentalists which pose a problem on the planet. Is Uganda not on the same planet you live on? Does your awareness stop at the shores of Africa? Or do you just not care when African kids are raped, tortured and forced to kill their own parents?
I cited Islam as the only GLOBAL violent religious fundamentalist threat. And Onifre, myself and others have demonstrated that you were wrong. Stop flapping about and admit that there are many Christian terror groups or continue equivocating and dropping fallacies. Your choice. I agree that Islam is the biggest terror threat. It would be crazy to deny that. The only problem is that you seem to want to live in a fantasy world where Christians do no wrong (and those who do wrong are not Chrsitians, even when they say they are) and that is just a comforting delusion on your part.
You don't have to go back to May 09 to dig up something on this source of terrorism. Moving those goalposts again Buz?
Buzsaw writes: Hi Onifre. Can you cite any mainstream media, including Fox which has covered any of the stuff you cited to any extent in the past six months or year? I got you one at just over six months, now you want one yesterday? Very poor form Buz. We are agreed that Islam is the worst offender when it comes to religiously inspired terrorism, by a wide margin. What is not agreed is your pathetic delusion that Christians are somehow whiter than white. I agree with you that saying "religion is responsible for terrorism" is over-simplifying matters. Islam must be singled out for special attention, as by far the worst offender, but brushing Christian terror groups under the carpet doesn't help matters either. In fact, it only serves to further isolate Muslims, who will be quick to spot the hypocrisy. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi ICANT,
What makes that man a Christian? Go back and read his comments again. He is extoling the value of the Ten commandments in a style almost indistinguishable from that of American Christian fundies. He claims to be a Christian and, with no ironclad way of determining who is a "true" Christian and who is not, we are left with little option but to take his word for it. I am as dubious as you are as to any claim that the LRA are a true reflection of Christ's teachings (or those of whoever wrote his lines), but the fact remains that they are professed Christians. Unless you are God himself, you have no way of telling whether they true Christians or not.
The Greek word transliterated Christianos which means 1) Christian, a follower of Christ. Only appears in these 3 verses in the Bible. As it happens, I'm defining "Christian" as per its normal use in the English language. You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to make the actions of your fellow religionists more palatable.
So just for clarification and to clear up my ignorance would you tell me what a Christian is? Clearing up your ignorance would take a lifetime and I don't have any intention of trying. Perhpas you and Buz would like to consider the oft heard objections of Muslims, when Islamic terror is mentioned; "Oh, they're not real Muslims! Islam is a religion of peace!", etc, etc. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
ICANT, you are talking in circles again.
If they are living a life like Christ did then they are Christians. BTW I haven't met one yet, and I sure don't claim to be one In which case, you have watered down the meaning of the term so completely that it ceases to be meaningful. If you don't even claim to be a Christian yourself (even though it is clear to the rest of the English-speaking world that you are one), then any debate about whether Otti is Christian immediately becomes meaningless. By your standards, Vincent Otti is not a Christian. But then, by your absurd standards, you are not a Christian, the Pope is not a Christian and no-one on the face of the Earth is a Christian. As usual, you busy playing infantile word-games. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
ICANT, please stop it.
No I just use the definition of the original word. I don't care whether your chosen definition is the original meaning or whether you simply pulled it out of your ass. Your definition is unable to correctly identify the Pope as a Christian. therefore, you are wasting my time with meaningless noise.
Not the watered down version you want to use to be able to include anyone and everyone that claims to be religious. This is a straightforward lie. I have used no such definition. My colleague Yakub, for instance, is not a Christian, he is a Muslim. The Dalai Lama is not a Christian, he is a Buddhist. The prime minister of India is not a Christian, he is a Sikh. Are you really dumb enough to imagine that anyone is going to fall for such transparent lies? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Some general replies,
CS writes: A Christ Proponent? I'm reminded of Jonathan Miller's joke;
quote: Straggler writes: Or Superman. Or Dracula. Or Osama Bin Laden. I think you'll find that Superman is a Methodist. Thanks to CS and Straggler for answering ICANT. I fear may have said something intemperate otherwise.
Hooah writes: I have to admit, after some research, I see where ICANT is coming from. I have to admit, after some experience with ICANT, that I see exactly where ICANT is coming from. He is, as he always does, trying to make excuses for Christianity by throwing up a shameless "No True Scotsman" defence.
logicalfallacies.info writes: The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.Example The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has. If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable. Apologies for the lengthy cut'n'paste, but I think one or two around here might benefit from reading that. This is exactly the argument that ICANT and Buz are making. It insulates Christianity and Christians everywhere from any criticism, as they just handwave and say "Ah well, he's not a REAL Christian.".
It is due to christians not being able to properly identify themselves as christians. They, in their own circles, judge one another and determine who is a REAL christian. I think you are absolutely right. I think that it is common (although not universal) for religious believers to think in this way. They are the REAL Christians, others are misguided at best, damned at worst. This kind of thinking plugs in all to easily to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because it is endemic though, doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out these flaws in logic. The intensity of this them-and-us mentality is, in my view, one of the primary differences between religious moderates and extremists. I believe that this kind of thinking is at the roots of most religious violence and factionalism. It is also one of the root causes of the current wave of Islamic terrorism. It is well known that Muslims are not supposed to kill other Muslims. This means that would-be Islamic terrorists must find some way of rationalising the Muslim deaths their actions might cause. How? Simple; the potential victims are not REAL Muslims. So that's OK. After all, if they were good Muslims, they would be on the terrorists' side. They would already be out fighting Jihad, not wallowing in the decadent filth of western society. The Quran only forbids killing REAL Muslims... so... that's all fine. Bombs away! There can be no doubt that Islam is more guilty than most religions in this regard, but the similarities in thinking between religious extremists of all stripes are striking and worrying. Thankfully, most American Christian fundies are more intent on massacring biology textbooks than people. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hey Buz,
What worries you about extremist fundi Christians? What do you consider worrisome religious extremist relative to Christianity these days? Well Rahvin mentioned the murder of George Tiller, which i had already mentioned in this thread. Oddly enough I find it worrying that a man can be gunned down, in front of his wife and friends, in a frickin' church, merely for doing his job. I find it worrying that extremist Christian groups with which the killer was affiliated are lauding this murdering scum as an "American hero". But then I'm eccentric like that. Coyote detailed the crude assault on America's system of government and, believe it or not, I find that worrying too. Equally worrying is the assault on science, as typified by the fevered attempts of Christian extremists to turn school textbooks into their own personal propaganda screeds (something else I already mentioned). You don't think that's worth worrying about? I respectfully disagree;
Mariah Blake writes: Amesa volunteer with the ultra- conservative Eagle Forum and Minuteman militia member who occasionally publishes angry screeds accusing illegal immigrant aliens of infesting America with diseases or blasting the environmentalist agenda to destroy Americapushed to infuse the standards with his right-wing views and even managed to add a line requiring books to give space to conservative icons, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority, without any liberal counterweight. ... Barton’s goal is to pack textbooks with early American documents that blend government and religion, and paint them as building blocks of our Constitution. In so doing, he aims to blur the fact that the Constitution itself cements a wall of separation between church and state. But his agenda does not stop there. He and the other conservative experts also want to scrub U.S. history of its inconvenient blemishesif they get their way, textbooks will paint slavery as a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one and refer to our economic system as ethical capitalism. They also aim to redeem Communist hunter Joseph McCarthy, a project McLeroy endorses. As he put it in a memo to one of the writing teams, Read the latest on McCarthyHe was basically vindicated. On the global front, Barton and company want textbooks to play up clashes with Islamic cultures, particularly where Muslims were the aggressors, and to paint them as part of an ongoing battle between the West and Muslim extremists. Barton argues, for instance, that the Barbary wars, a string of skirmishes over piracy that pitted America against Ottoman vassal states in the 1800s, were the original war against Islamic Terrorism. What’s more, the group aims to give history a pro-Republican slantthe most obvious example being their push to swap the term democratic for republican when describing our system of government. Source; http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...res/2010/1001.blake.html Now you may think that all sounds just dandy, but to me that sounds like a bunch of religious loons trying to turn public education into their personal indoctrination campaign. Or we could go back to Uganda, where the LRA are now on the run, but Christians continue to seek the deaths of anyone of whom they disapprove;
Jeffrey Gettelman writes: KAMPALA, Uganda Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about curing homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks. The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was the gay agenda that whole hidden and dark agenda and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family. For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how the gay movement is an evil institution whose goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity. Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior. Source; Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push - The New York Times Again, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this is worrying.
I mean, how can you possibly compare the global Christian extremists a threat to you? Mostly, these events are not a threat to me, at least not directly. But then, I'm not selfish enough to only be motivated to concern by things that directly involve myself. I care about other people too y'know.
Why is it that some of you people incessantly compare the threat of Islam to Christianity in these modern times? It appears to be a paranoia among some of you. Why? For the reasons I already outlined; the similarities in thought between Muslim and Christian extremists are striking. That in itself is worrying. Perhaps you don't feel so worried, but then, you don't live in a country where, within relatively recent memory, Christian terrorists almost succeeded in wiping out the entire ruling government in a single bombing (I'm talking about the Brighton bomb here). Let me be clear; modern Christianity is currently much less dangerous than Islam. Nearly every day we see new Islamic terror atrocities. Just today, on the BBC's world news front page, there are stories about Obama on the aftermath of the Pants-Bomber attack, an explosion in Afghanistan that has killed nine people and another report on Islamic terrorism in Yemen. That is fairly typical. Islam stands head and shoulder above other religions in the terror stakes, mostly, in my view, because it has never enjoyed a Reformation or Enlightenment. My problem with your stance in this thread is that you seem to imagine that Christianity is whiter than white and that just isn't the case. If your only point is "Hey, we're not as bad as the Muslims!" then I agree. However, this is a strikingly low standard to which to compare oneself. It's like a murderer claiming "Hey, i may have killed one or two people, but at least I'm not Ted Bundy!". Well gee-whiz that's swell, but just as one does not get credit for not being a serial killer, Christianity doesn't get credit for not going on a terror rampage. You're not supposed to go on a rampage. This is a basic expectation. You don't get credit for behaving exactly as you are supposed to behave. In short, just because other religious adherents behave much worse than Christians, doesn't mean that the excesses of Christianity should suddenly be forgotten. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Yeah, that was an especially reprehensible statement.
The sad thing is that Stein seems to think he sounds clever when he says things like that. He doesn't. In fact, thanks to his honking nasal voice, he sounds like what he always sounds like; a goose choking to death on a kazoo. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
We agree on one thing.
Granny, Granny, listen up. All ideologies and aspects of human life have their nutcases. But that's about it.
Citing this one lone incident by this one deranged nutcase is a strawman response to my question and my position. This one incident has now been cited three times in this thread, none having any relevance to the fact that fundamentalist Christians do not pose any significant terrorist threat to the planet as has, in recent history, been the case with secularist/athiestic communism and the fundamentals of Islam/Jihad and violence. Are you actually saying that Tiller's murder was insignificant? Why don't you go and tell his wife that? I'm sure it will be a big comfort to her.
The need to repeat three times for you people to cite this one incident or even a few isolated incidents by nutcases makes my point, that the fundamentals of NT Christianity pose no global threat whatsoever to humanity. Oh, I get it; Tiller's murder never happened! You are losing it mate. You seem to be trying to fall back upon "the fundamentals of NT Christianity" as your saving grace here, as a buzzword that will get you out of this hole. In reality you are simply using the same NTS fallacy in different garb. The killer was a Christian convert, converted by right-wing Christian anti-abortion groups and, on the basis of his new found faith, he went and shot a man dead. Those are all facts Buz.
LOL. The American system of government is a republic as per the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc as per and instituted by the founding fathers whose majority espoused the fundamentals of NT Christianity and the Biblical Ten Commandments. Take comfort in your fantasy world if you like Buz.
LOL again. How does this freedom of speech pose a terroristic threat, any more than the fundamentals set forth in the Koran, the Haddith, the Sunnahs, the Communist Manifesto, quotes from Black Panthers, and in fact, some of the Christophobic hate speach here at EvC? If you were actually bothering to read what I say, you would realise that I never said it did. You asked not for terrorist threats, but "What worries you about extremist fundi Christians?". Now you move the goalposts. Shame on you Buz.
1. Where/what in the Constitution is there a cemented wall between church and state or against religion? Pathetic. If you need the Establishment Clause explaining to you at your age, you really aren't much of an American patriot. Know your Constitution!
Must I again, for the umpteent time repeat the fact that our founders advocated the Bible and Watts Hymnal IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS and instituted church services IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY THE US MARINE BAND? Yes, I think you must. Care to try that again with some backing? I'd be particularly interested to see your evidence for the hymnal claim. Names, dates and places please Buz.
2. Barton, thankfully, is apprising America on precisely and factually what the founders believed, practiced and had in mind/advocated when they established this republic. Here's my challenge to you, Granny. Cite one example of falsified information that Barton has published or proclaimed relative to the founding fathers or relative to the Constitution and explain to us how it has been falsified. Barton is an ideologue, trying to turn public education in to his own indoctrination service. As for your request for Bartonian falsehoods, I will offer this for now; "if they get their way, textbooks will paint slavery as a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one and refer to our economic system as ethical capitalism.". The slavery nonsense should be obvious enough, but the "ethical capitalism" gag is just hilarious. Economics 101; the USA, like almost all nations, is a mixed economy. Barton is either trying to hide the public aspects of US society, or he is simply pig-ignorant. Possibly both.
Need I remind you that all nations in history at one time or another have practiced slavery? Need I remind you that it is the Republican Party whose first president was Abraham and the scores of thousands who died and maimed all, worked for the emcipation and integrating of slaves and blacks? No, you need not, mostly because it's irrelevant. Either you agree with statement "slavery {was} a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one" or you do not. Do you agree with this statement? Or is Barton wrong?
Do you ever assimilate anything said, which empirically refutes your irrational ranting, Granny? This is especially amusing, given your final comment, but we'll get to that in a moment...
Wake up and SMELL THE COFFEE, Granny. Mohammed and his successors all have declared a fatwa of global domination, meaning that all infidels, i.e. non-Muslims must become under Islamic fundamentalistic Shariah law. Barton is right on as always. [/rant] Barton's point here is not entirely spurious; the Quran was used to justify Barbary piracy. However, the overtly politicised tone of descriptions such as "the original war on Islamic terror" are hyperbole and clearly designed as propaganda for current political factions, rather than the neutral academic tone that is expected of textbooks. These are textbooks we're talking about, not a venue for sloganeering. If Barton were to describe the Barbary wars as Islamic terrorism in a political pamphlet or something, i would have no problem with it. In a textbook, one should present the facts and let the reader draw their own political conclusions. to do otherwise is simply indoctrination. Your response also bears a disturbing attitude, one that you often display. You are portraying all Muslims as one giant homogenised monolithic entity, regardless of any difference in view, behaviour or even (bizarrely) time period. This is obviously inane. I have been careful to draw distinction between fundy and moderate Christians. You would do well to apply the same to Muslims.
Your unsupported allegations sounds to me like Christophobic and unsupported hate speach, Oh dear. one moment you're extolling free speech, the next you're accusing me of hate speech. I suggest you go and look up the word "hypocrite".
Granny writes: Or we could go back to Uganda, where the LRA are now on the run, but Christians continue to seek the deaths of anyone of whom they disapprove; Buz writes: Again do you read or think before your post, Granny? Did you bother to refute my previous point that Uganda is engaged in civil war among factions? Particularly in Africa, atrocities are often perpetrated by both sides of a faction conflict. Ha! you really are priceless! Do YOU read before you post Buz? I doubt it. Only a simpleton could possibly imagine that your response had something to do with what I posted. You say "Uganda is engaged in civil war among factions"; I'm talking about the bill to execute homosexuals Buz! Are you actually insane enough to believe that Uganda is at war with homosexuals? Do you imagine that there are gay terror groups hiding out in the mountains? Or did you not actually read my post? Or are you actually so astonishingly dense that you are unable to tell the difference between an armed military faction and ordinary homosexual Ugandans (and their friends and family, who might also face execution if the bill passes)? The proposed bill in Uganda not only stipulates execution for homosexuals, but imprisonment for those who "aid and abet" them, i.e. anyone who fails to betray their homosexual friend or family member to the police, so that they might be executed. This bill was directly inspired by American Christian fundamentalists, who held anti-gay conferences in Uganda. But of course, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would already know that... Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : I overstated the excesses of the Ugandan bill. Fixed now. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Heh!
The Pink Brigades? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hey Buz,
The fact remains that the policies of founders like Jefferson such as church in Congress and the Bible and Watts Hymnal in all of the schools attest to the fact that the Biblical principles of Christianity predominated in the founding of the nation. Like Jefferson? Last time you said it was Jefferson. Also, last time, I asked you to back up that particular claim. I see that instead, you are just repeating it without a shred of evidence. Perhaps you would be kind enough to actually back your claim up this time. When did this occur? Where? How do you know? Or is it simply bull? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Buz,
I was going by memory and if my memory serves me will we all, back there, my ole buds Washington, Adams and Jefferson all had the Bible and Watts Hymnal in our schools. For a start, none of your good buddies could be compared to modern Christian fundamentalists. Adams was a Unitarian, Jefferson arguably a deist and Washington used to walk out of Church services before taking communion. When it was pointed out to Washington that this was impolitic, he stopped attending altogether. Secondly, the mere presence of the hymnal in schools does not argue that it was "that our founders advocated the Bible and Watts Hymnal IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS" as you first suggested (you did not, as I claimed above refer specifically to Jefferson, so my apologies for that). You say yourself that the use of the hymnal was a continuation of the practise in England. You need to to advocacy, not mere presence. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Today we have the technology to allow direct and immediate voting on each and every issue Huh? What technology is this? This kind of idea is simply impractical. There would be too many items to vote on and people would soon get bored by issues they knew nothing about and barely understood. At the last British General election the turnout was 61.4%. That's a general election! Under your system, we'd soon have decisions being taken by a tiny minority. It would never work. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Communications networks with adequate bandwidth, security, accessibility and availability. That's not an answer, that's just a description of what an answer might be like. How are these networks to operate? How are they to be secured? How do we prevent fraud? How are the votes going to be collated? Who gets to decide what is actually being voted on in the first place? And how much is this going to cost? If you are being serious, you need much more specific answers than this.
That's right, people would only vote on issues that directly affected their lives and either ignore or educate themselves on issues they barely understood. Why is this a problem? Because it relies upon a vastly over-optimistic view of human nature. If the fuss over gay rights in the US has taught us anything it is that many people get most upset (and most active) over issues that don't affect them at all.
What, you mean like a minority of 646 deciding on behalf of the other 60,000,000. Gosh, no we wouldn't want that to happen now, would we? Actually I would and do like that. You can't steer a ship by committee, nor could a country be effectively governed when it was shackled to a public that does not and will not understand the issues. Your system would lead to a permanent state of options paralysis. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Buz,
I see you've given up on trying to show that the founding fathers approved of the use of these books and settled for "Well they didn't object!". Pretty thin. As far as I am aware, the Bible was mainly used as reading primer, not a history lesson or a science textbook. That might be a factor. Just for the record, you might like to take a look at this page, which examines the claim that Jefferson introduced the Hymnals you mentioned into US public schools. It's not true of course, but that doesn't stop (guess who!) your buddy David Barton from making the claim. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024