continue Religion debate to infinity here
 

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to derail the Iraq thread...so I will reply to your posts here instead. If I accidentally leave out someone, please remind me, O.K....

slang -
Hi slang, I would be classified as Judaic...
and you?

Cam -
Not true, interpretation changes the meaning, something the book of prophecies are forbidden to do. Even in individual conversing where interpretation is often necessary, it's a bad idea.
Example: Say the word 'helicopter' is not found in another language and you want to explain that "He flew away in a helicopter." The word to interpret 'helicopter' is 'bird', if you say "He flew away on a bird." the natives will think you are nuts!
The Torah leaves the untranslatable words as they are in Hebrew, and you can tell by the rest of the sentence and the whole paragraph what the meaning is. Example: The Hebrew word 'nflms' in the Torah is written as "There were nflms in the Earth in those days..." But the newer Bibles interpreted 'nflms' to 'giants' and was written by man as "There were giants in the Earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
'Giants' is not only wrong and changes the meaning, but it is a huge No-No to any God fearing person.
The words in that paragraph that are translated make clear that 'nflms' meant 'those who descended to Earth from Heaven.'
There is another where 'navel' is interpreted where the paragraph clearly describes the woman's private part below the navel.
When man adds or takes away to/from God's words, the book becomes man's words and will...to me.

juju -
I believe global warming is occurring, but NOT because of anything man has done. It's a natural cycle of self-correction the Earth goes through, like the Ice Age was(were the animals back then driving SUV's and polluting up the air too???)
Remember, the "hole" in the O-zone is shrinking as we speak because the Glaciers are melting, because of global warming.

jaguar -
Global warming is a fact as well.
And, as a parent it is solely MY RIGHT to teach my child about life as I see fit...not as you or the school sees fit. In fact, the schools have been teaching social awareness for some time now, and they've done such a bang-up job of it...we now have kids that can't handle failure or losing so they kill themselves or others, we now have 9 year olds getting busted for possession of pot, and we now have 10 year old girls getting gang-raped in class or turning up pregnant!!!! WHAT A SUCCESS! The school system can't even get reading,writing, and math right, and YOU trust them with your child's psychi? You don't have children, do you?

headsplice -
It always helps if you actually read the conversation before jumping in to barf out vomit that nobody stated!
The Torah was translated word for word from third century B.C.E. to present. The Torah I am reading was translated by men who understood the wrath they would bring upon themselves if they added or took away from the meaning of God's words or will.
Neat, Huh?!!
As for "knowing" and "truly understanding" God?
Bringing this down to the human level, to show that faith in God is no different from anything else in our humble lives... you may read all the books by Stephen Hawking, but do you "know" and "truly understand" him? Also, you most definately spent your whole life depending on your mother, father, sister, brothers, but do you ever really "know" and "truly understand" them?
Nope! We can't even understand each other!

undertoad -
I completely agree with you that a well-rounded child is produced by exposure to every side of every issue, so they can make their own informed opinion...in High School and College. At 7 years of age, I don't care how carefully they chose their words to remain diplomatic and all inclusive...
the only thing my 7 year old took away from that lesson was "the world is going to end." And that is so wrong on so many levels! And it's also a flat out lie, I'm not paying the school to lie to my child.
These contradictions jump from Old Testament to New Testament, then from revised to some newer books...
these have been re-written by man and are man's words. Why does it surprise you that man contradicts himself?
The Torah is understandable to all...after all, I understand it! ;)

radar -
Ignorance is bliss to you, no doubt!
Click ALL the links, Einstein...the ark? Sodom and Gomorrah? Ring a bell?
The 10 Commandments are Judaic and Christian, and the laws of our land throughout History were based on them. If the Religious symbol is also an Historical symbol and it represents two or more separate churches, it IS CONSTITUTIONAL!
George Washington was a Free-Mason, not really Christian...he was more of a Diest than anything.
I never said our Government was founded on Christian Religion...I said this Country(We the People) was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
You only hear what you wish to hear, don't ya?

That is a very good question and the answer is christian....of some sort. I attend a Presbatarian church service maybe 2 times a year and own one bible. I look at it because my cousin gave it to me and it reminds me of him and his family. I read it once or twice. It isn't interesting reading in my opinion.

The idea that there is some universal life force that gives a rats ass about me and what I do is appealing in some respects. The notion hasnt caught fire for me though. I do believe that the bible is full of very wise advice and attempts to provide a template for a person's life. I don't read or study it though. Maybe I'm missing out on something big or maybe my time would be better spent rearranging my sock drawer. I havent been inspired up to this point.

I did attend a church in Mi that was appealing but havent seen anything like it here in Pa. That church was full of younger people and whole tone of the service was interesting and entertaining instead of the ol' stand up...sit down...listen to an old man read from the bible routine. I dont like going to church. For that matter, I dont like going outside much, but I'm not agoraphobic. When Jesus or god can come chat with me online in my tiny comfortable office here, I'm open. As for the boring standard service, no thank you.

So, I guess that would put me in the unreligious catagory.

And, I'm very glad to have you here, I've never met a Judaic non-liberal, muchless a female one.

*sighs* Did i ever say you didn't have the right? Just as you are free to teach your poor, poor child whatever you want, I am entitled to think your opinions are farcical. Thank you for pointing out some of the worst cases you could find, I hope they make you feel better. I'm a product of the generation you're talking about a guess what, for ever fucked up kid there is usually a fucked up home environment. it's also a pretty low number, we all just got our VCE results back, I'm surrounded by and am one of thousands of happy, bright kids going into top uni places, the leaders and innovators of the future. On the other hand our socialist system is better funded than yours. What worries me is your jingoistic hyperbolic attitude, your blind fear and extreme examples point to a deeply coloured view of the world, I sincerely hope one day you can broaden your sadly myopic view of the world.

BTW I’m not sure if you’re part of those failed by your ailing school system you so viciously attack or whether we’re talking at cross purposes but don’t you mean psyche?

I'll let juju correct you on global warming.

Sorry headsplice but I *had* to jump in here. *You* may not understand Stephen Hawking, but some of us do. That though, is beside the point. Your rather inarticulate argument seems to be the old concept that science is a faith because most of us don't understand it. A true scientist has no faith in science, he merely follows the currant most likely theory (all science is theory) until a more likely one come along, the rules of physics might be overturned tomorrow and a scientist would have no problem with this. Science is dynamic and is not faith, religion is static. Science is theory based upon interpretation of the best possible evidence today, religion is faith in the intangible and abstract. For many science I agree is a form of faith, but science itself cannot be compared to religion, nor can people for that matter.

So pretty much, what you’re trying to say is only someone who can read and understand Hebrew should be able to just pick up the bible and read it. Or else they just have to interpret what the words mean themselves if no English translation was available.
I'm sure that's exactly what God had in mind when he had men write down his word.
But like I said before this discussion is worthless as changing someones mind about religion is futile. :)

I think that is the attitude that makes drug dealers kids drug dealers.

Jag I want you to know you gained a ton of respect for saying that. It amazing to me how many of my friends try and argue that theories are not set in stone and that there is no possible way that anything can change them. That's one problem I have with most college physics classes here is they put so much emphasis on the math that they fail to teach the theories behind them, let alone discuss and debate them.

Wrong. Posting any religious symbol (and the 10 commandments is ONLY religious and not historical) whether it represents one religion or several is unconstitutional and thus illegal because it would ammount to the government respecting an establishment or even a couple of them. The government can't legally support any religions whether it's one or several. They would also be disrespecting all non judeo-christian religions. The government can't legally put any religions over others.

America is not a Christian nation and never was.

Incorrect as usual; None of the laws in America or our government was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even our declaration of rights has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Our founding fathers believed in NATURAL RIGHTS like Locke described. They also believed in religious freedom, whether that is freedom of religion or from religion. This means they knew that people were born with rights and they got them from nature. But whether they happened to believe in the monotheistic god portrayed by Christians and Jews, or any of the different gods believed in by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or even Satan worshipers, they could assume their rights came from that entity as long as they got the concept of inalienable rights that aren't given to us by government and can't be taken away by government across.

The ark and sodom and gohmorra haven't been found either. Wow you're such a fart smeller.....er....smart feller. No I was right the first time.

OMG that was just tooooo funny. :rolleyes:

Actually, her assesment looks valid to me. She didn't say that global warming isn't happening, she said that it is just part of the natural cycle of the Earth. I don't know if this is true or not, but I have heard that there is a lack of long-term temperature data on the Earth. Is there some sort of centuries-long cycle that we're unaware of? We just don't know.

I wouldn't call what they're teaching a lie, though. There is significant evidence to support what the schools are teaching.

Cam - thanks =)
My interest in science has always been in the theory, not the application, for me that is kind of boring in comparison thus i end up dealing with allot more theroy than most. Secondly these kind of arguements always bring up the 'science is a faith too' misconception.

Juju - While there is no doubt that the earth's temperature has fluctuated significantly in over the past thousands of years and gone far higher than it is today there is one key difference. It's never gone up anywhere near this fast. The changes have been far, far slower. To argue that pumping the amount of shit we do into the atmosphere is going to have little or no effect to me at least seems very much like burying your head in the sand. This evidence comes from the same source as the longer term temperature information we have - ice cores. Thus while the temperature does fluctuate, there I extremely strong evidence to support the claim that we are having a significant and detrimental effect on the heath of our environment. I guess in the long term the argument is that as the environment changes, so will it's inhabitants (Darwin in action). But the pace of change we are inflicting on the environment is far shorter than the timeframes evolution tends to work over, thus even in a larger timescale it is hard to claim what we are doing is either good for the environment or part of a natural cycle which therefore has no detrimental effect.

To apply what i was talking about before - the best evidence i am aware of points to what i've stated above, but it is still science and thus must be taught as theory not fact.

Ohh, another fallacy. Oh boy, i agree with Radar, shoot me now.

What is actually happening here is what lots of chrsitians do - the arguement that ebcause a moral or teaching is part of the christian faith, whereever it pops up it is a christian moral and cannot just be the product of an entirely non-christian thought process. The christian attempt at a monopoly on morality in effect. It's an arguement i take particular distaste to because the corollary usually implied is that you cannot have 'chrsitian' moral without being christian.

This was a fair representation of the situation as I know it. Many environmental/anti-capitalist groups state for fact that GlWarm is a direct result of auto and industrial exhausts. There are just as many and just as credible scientists that believe it isn't happening or isn't caused by man.

Actually, there is one point - the idea that the ozone hole is shrinking.

Just last year, the ozone hole over the South Pole extended into the Southern tip of Chile. Shrinking, huh?

All that's happened is that the rate of expansion has shrunk. We assume this is because people are a little bit more environmentally conscious, but we (environmentalists) don't really know - causality and all that.

As for global warming - there is so much about weather and temperature cycles of the earth that we don't know that we can't say definitively whether or not we are causing the rise in temperature. But it's stupid to assume no responsibility, and to go on as if modern civilization has nothing to do with it - if only for the fact that we might be right.

I think, however, that Cairo's example of her son brings up a very important consideration - do we tell our children about the problems we've caused? If not, when do we let them know? And will it matter either way?

I shoudl also probably point out that like many activist groups the environment groups (which IMHO has lost all direction, the really innovative stuff and the more through solutions are coming out of the alt. globalist (not the anti, they're a bunch of idiots) movements now) overstate the evidence, to the detriment of their cause.

Every one of those scientists that I know of have been thoroughly discredited. The problem with many of them is that they have reached the conclusion before the experiment - and not from an educated guess, but from a poliical conviction. This means there's a tendency to overlook data or give less weight to variables that will not prove your hypothesis.

It happens on both sides of the fence.

Also, it is inaccurate to group environmental groups in with anti-capitalist ones. Some of the most radical environmental groups are anti-civilization, and some may be anti-capitalist, but they don't represent the mainstream nor the broad spectrum of such groups.

I just had and idea that solves there problems. The federal government needs to create a tax deduction for the purchase price of a Segway scooter.

(slang thinks to self: Al Sharpton, Segway vehicles, firearms of any type, and black helicopters are relevant to any topic or discussion.)

yeah but lets see you use all of em at the same time and keep it relevent. :)

~james

I thought this article had an interesting insight on the Segway yeah it's from ESPN but scroll down about half way or just search for segway. The rest of the article is interesting to.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback

But then the concentration of 9/10s of the worlds fat existing in Nth America would slowly change the earths orbit and we'd all sink into the sun, causing the firey demise of the the entire planet.

I wanted to go hear Rev. Al Sharpton preach, and figured I'd use my Segway to get over to his church from the subway. I was going to carry a 9 mm pistol for protection, but then I noticed a black helicopter was following me.

How's that? :)

I was thinking more shoot him and escape on the segway while being chased by a baclk helicopter but....

I happened to be thinking about God today, and for some reason, the NIN song "Heresy" came to mind.

"God is dead
And no one cares
If there is a hell
I'll see you there."

Mean-spirited as can be, but truly a classic set of lyrics. :)

yes, but is it relevant? :)

~james

I say it is relevant as it refers to religion (Al Sharpton being a Pentecostal minister).

(Look...it's a fucking stretch...gimme some damned brownie points here. :) )

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as a parent it is solely MY RIGHT to teach my child about life as I see fit...not as you or the school sees fit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Through my work (no, honestly) I know a lot of drug dealers. And their kids, who are, for the most part as fucked up as their parents in a variety of ways. I also know drug dealer's kids that while not perfect, are much better people than their parents. What makes the difference is the level of parental involvement with the kids.

When you leave your child to be raised by the state (including the state supported public education system), making only minimal effort to be involved in your child's life and upbringing, you're not going to have a high quality, interested, involved, inquisitive child.

I know several children who are either homeschooled, or whose parents invest a lot of their time (not just "quality time," which is a fiction developed to make part-time parents feel better about ignoring thier offspring 90% of the time) in their children, being involved in their lives, but also giving them reponsibility in making choices in their lives and understanding the consequences of their actions. These kids are a joy to be around, no matter what their ages ...

I spend too much of my time talking to parents who are essentially begging me (and my facility) to help them correct the mistakes in childrearing they have been making for the last 15 or so years.

"I give him everything he wants."

"He doesn't listen to me."

No wonder.

You get a different perspective on childrearing today when you see the mother of th 14 year old who herself has a 1-1/2 year old child, with mom wondering why her daughter won't straighten up and fly right.

Or the mother with deep bruises on her neck from her 14 year old son's attempt to strangle her (she had lost consciousness and also probably had a concusion from her darling boy kicking her in the head after she fell to the ground) refusing to file paperwork for an emergency commitment evaluation because he said he was sorry when the police were putting him in the handcuffs and loading him in to the back of the cruiser. Beating the shit out of mom was a regular family activity. Probably still is, assuming he's not in juvenile dentention for beating up someone other than mom.

So, although I've wandered from the point here, the American educational system is broken ... more than likely because as a nation, we've turned the children over to the system to parent, rather than doing the job ourselves, demanding of the schools more than what they're intended to do.

I'm a product of the public school system (save for a disatrous year in a catholic school), and overall have no problem with the quality of education I received. That was a bit of a while ago, though. Given the opportunity, I'll homeschool.

Your socialist system is at least admitting up front it's a socialist system, jag, rather than pretending otherwise.

I think you're confusing the blame, wolf. You start off by blaming the parents, and then somehow transfer the blame onto the public education system. Which is it?

My general group of friends includes several different backgrounds - home schooled, private schooled, and public schooled, and we're young enough that we're only a few years out of the systems. I think there are few traits you can associate with any one group of them, and, obviously, this is a less than scientific study. However, I generally seem to get the feeling that the private school kids are better students and the home school kids had a harder time getting started in life on their own. And, since I hung out with the Honors crowd, my public school friends are the smartest. :)

I don't really think that you can directly blame public schools for our social ills. Public schools aren't the place to teach morality, the home is. Which brings me back to the first point - parent involvement. If kids don't find the attention they need from their parents, they'll look for it elsewhere. It's unfortunate that many of today's parents are too busy to recognise that.

Ultimately the fault lies with the parents. Perhaps in my rambling I didn't express my point clearly enough.

I'm only blaming the school system for being ineffective in what it's supposed to do ... educate children (in the three Rs sense of the word).

i dont know about homeschooling, in my case at least. i think its a luxury few people can afford today. i will say that when it comes time to put my son in school he will be attending private school. i have lost faith in the public school system as well.

~james

Aahhh!!! Don't hijack the thread started to prevent the continued thread hijacking!

oops. sorry. for the benefit of the thread, pretend i said parochial school instead of private. :)

~james

Aaarg! Hoist the black flag!

One real advantage my kids paro... er private school has is that the parents are invested in it financially and that leads to an emotional investment that shouldn't be discounted. None of us wants to throw money away, so if we think we see mismanagement we are on it and we are listened to because we are customers and partners. We are middle class / working class parents who've decided that education is too important to be left to the political and often politicized system.

Whoa! Back up the investment trolly!
 

Not always -- I have met a number of people who have pulled their kids out of private schools because they have witnessed the converse of your admirable reaction, ie; parents who essentially wash their hands of their kids, because, after all, "We've written a big check -- let the school take care of it."

In one salient tale, a girl was routinely shoplifting from the student-run school store, and when the parent advisor tried to stop the child, she just shrugged and walked away. When the parent went to the headmaster (yes, it's one of those schools) she was told "Oh, is that Mr. So-and-so's child? Well, just keep a tab of what she takes and he'll write us a check at the end of the month. We can't afford to upset him; he just paid for our new auditorium."

Egads. Not all folks who make a financial investment make a concommitant emotional investment. On the other hand, imagine how much worse it would be if THOSE kids were home schooled and learning more of their parents' values!

Re: Whoa! Back up the investment trolly!
 

Parents who will buy thier kids out of criminal charges are not the kind of parents who would be willing to invest the time and effort in homeschooling.

Re: Whoa! Back up the investment trolly!
 

I'm familiar a story of preferential treatment that occurred locally where kids from one family and their classmates didn't have to follow dress code in a school, however, to me that is the exception and it didn't last long. Most folks in my school have to scrape to afford it. I'd much rather a place where parents have a financial committment. The two great advantages that public schools have are that they are free and compulsory. Those are also the two things which cause the most problems for the public system.

Ideally, home schooling is the way to go. If my school begins to fail that is our next move.

I think the emotional attachment to the money depends on how much they depend on the money. Obviously, a family that has to scrape to get by for their kids education are going to care more about the cost of that education than ones that can buy that school a new auditorium.

This is a rantey-subject I've been looking forward to bitching about for a while, and, ideally, I won't blow it too badly. I'm homeschooled. Well, unschooled, I suppose. I spend my days doing things that entertain me; posting on webboards, IRCing, listening to music, gaming, reading, coding...Whatever strikes me as fun at the time. It goes in phases, actually: rarely do I go from 'gaming' to 'coding' to 'reading' within a single day. Instead, I'll typically focus on a single thing for a good 10-20 hours, burn out, and repeat the process with one of the others.

Public school is flawed. For whatever reason, it's not about education, nor has it been anytime within my lifetime. I've heard some people have decent schools; maybe they just suck more out in Oregon. The approach to teaching around here seems to be "force-feed and regurgitate": read chapters X, do homework Y, take test Z. It might work if the student has an active desire to learn the stuff and takes the time to comprehend and learn it. They can get by without, however, and the material is typically presented as highly disinteresting. Why should they bother?

Over the years, curiosity in new things drops off to about nill. Learning for its own sake ceases to be fun and interesting for many people, as they associate it with the unpleasant and forced nature of school. Somewhere along the line, they develop a dependance on the system; "it's the only way to learn". The most common comment I seem to get is "without school, how will you learn to do $foo?".

I'm not too hot on what little I've heard about most private schools, either, for basically all the reasons that've been mentioned by others within this thread. It might be a viable alternative, but it seems like they could easily just have the exact same problems.

The key thing in learning, I think, is having the kid be interested in it. If they don't care or are actively resisting, why bother wasting your time? Provide motivation, keep them interested, keep them involved.

I suppose the private vs public vs home/un thing is really a question of values. What do you define as "learning"? Is learning more important than money? How much should they learn in what span of time?

The only increased cost that I can see in (home|un)schooling would come from having to take care of the kid(s) during the day when they're young. Teach 'em to cook eggs, pasta, and sandwiches before they're 8 and let 'em fend for themselves. Well, maybe enlighten them on reading, walking, and the route to the library, too.

Admittedly, there are downsides: it's pretty much impossible to get a "well-rounded education" out of unschooling, and the dating prospects are typically about nill.

I don't have any references to cite, but A.S. Neil started a <a href="http://www.s-hill.demon.co.uk/">pretty nifty-looking private school</a> in England, and wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312141378/qid=1040578605/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-3785129-2275964?v=glance&s=books">a book</a> about it. Lots of books have also been written about home/unschooling, but I've only ever read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962959170/qid=1040578205/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-3785129-2275964?v=glance&s=books">this one</a>.

--Sk

I wrote a long post on this yesterday, selected all of it and accidentally hit paste. IE for mac does not seem to have a undo function. I was not amused.

Anyway...

First of all I've been in the 3 systems i'll be talking about - private, public and public elite.

For a few years i went to one of the biggest and most expensive private school there is here. If kids want to learn the are a great environment, providing unique opportunities that the lesser funded public schools cannot. The smaller class sizes and sometimes higher quality of teaching seem to help about 1/3 of those who are not born academics. the other 2/3s just stay the same. The space it gives teachers to move can allow them ot provide more interesting activities that can get otherwise bored kids learning and involved. The private schools here are between $1000 and $25000. This also included religious etc school which often make up the bottom end of the pricing scale.

I think it is the same in the US but the public system here is woefully underfunded. I mean badly. While those with an interest in learning can still thrive it is far harder, the environment is far less positive (although not too different to private schools, a thug in a $1200 blazer is still a stupid thug). Staff wise the teachers tend to be of lower quality, although there are exceptions and you can really tell when you get a good teacher. People are motivated, group work gets done, people hand in work and participate in class. As these schools are run as businesses they do give an amazing amount of leeway to students who can afford it, i know one girl at a top melbourne girls private school who has been kicked out 5 times, each time daddy has written a cheque and she's been let back in with open arms. While I'm more open than a few friends of mine who think the private school system should be abolished to provide a better level of education equality i would like to see the massive amounts of money that go as profits instead going into the public system, my putting everyone in the same environment you can also promote tolerance and understanding, which i would argue is as essential to teach kids as the 3 Rs.

One thing we have here which i don't know of existing outside australia is a network of 2-3 elite public schools in each major capital city. These school have far better funding, a mixture of government and donations from old boys and friends of the school (old boys tend to include high numbers of people in the top and astronomic pay brackets). They compete with private schools in sports, often wear similar uniforms and consistently top the state in final year results, often making up half the intake into top courses such as med and law. these schools tend to only include the last 4-5 years of high school at most and are usually enter by a test/interview. They offer an environment that actively encourages and promotes academic competition, tolerance and the onus to learn is firmly on the student. If work is missed, you fail, no extensions, no excuses, no teachers following you up. Thus while private schools which spoon-feed their students suffer by far the highest uni dropout rate. These schools offer the top 1000 or so students each year to have access to excellent affordable education that encompasses many minorities and a wide range of socioeconomic strata.

I don't think there is an ideal system, but having been through those 3 i do have to say the elite public schools do certainly provide an oppotunity for kids that otherwise would have far more trouble demonstrating their full potential.


Notes:
A good teacher can keep kids entertained while teaching but we all have ot do things in life we don't greatly enjoy, not being facinated is not a good excuse for not learning something at a high school level, i've heard that winge from people my age, quit whining, slacker.

Teachers are the most underpaid and undervalued profession we have. How can you expect the great people that we NEED to go into teaching on the pitiful saleries and futures we offer? Teaching should be as highly respected as law and medicine.

There is nothing that can be done to force a stubborn and disinterested pereson to learn--truly learn--something. Sure, you can force them to do meet a certain standard of quality, and maybe they'll pick up a few things, but it's far more work for far less gain. There's no real requirement to learn, let alone remember for more than a few weeks, much of the information that students are presented with in public schools around here. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

--Sk

I apologize for the late response, this time of year is so hard for me to find time to relax and get in here. Right now, I'm all work,work,work, and no play. Hehehe...

Slang -
Thank you for the kind words to me, when you said,"I've never met a Judaic non-liberal, muchless a female one." My first thought was...Barbra Streisand is Jewish, not Judaic at all. Actually, she's Socialist/Communist which by definition is Godless...thus, explaining her refusal to comment on the Israel-Palestinian matter.
The Lord reveals Himself to whom He will, no matter where you are or what you are doing...only at that time does clarity and inspiration set in.

Jaguar -
You say,"our socialist system is better funded than yours."...Unless you live in Norway or Finland, your Country is going broke! If Norway or Finland were more populated, they too could not keep their head above water. The United States has no desire to become a broke socialist system(welfare was established to be temporary) We are a Capitalist system that serves to empower We the People in this Republic Country.
But I did get a laugh out of your, 'My dad is better than your dad' claim, LOL....
And then you say,"A true scientist has no faith in science..." LMAO...I'll remind you of this the next time you try to use science as a basis of proof or fact. Also, if you understood Stephen Hawking's high energy partical physics...you wouldn't be on this messageboard! ROTFLMAO...
According to you, NASA has been discredited and debunked, eh???? Riiiiight!

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...ozonehole.html

Cam -
No, that's not what I'm saying...English translation is available, and the handful of words that can not translated are self explanitory when you read the rest of the paragraph that did translate to English.

Radar -
Let's take a look at what the Religion clause actually means instead of what activist groups tell us it means, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Hmmmmm,"make no law"....make no law. In your deluded little mind, exactly what law is Congress clamoring to vote on with regards to the 10 Commandments? If, as you imply, our Founding Fathers had sought to supress religious excercise from the Government and States, they would not have established a congressional Chaplain, prayer before every session begins in congress, Presidential swearing in on the Bible, and the 10 Commandments on the wall of the Supreme building when it was built. Establishment of Religion refers to forcing one single ruling religion onto the people, since the 10 Commandments are recognized by Judaic and Christian, two very different Religions, allowing the democratic will of the people only encourages multi-religion freedom.
Now, the no "prohibiting" part...
Our courts are supposed to decide and interpret LAW, since the Constitution prevents law(for or against) on Religion, what are all these courts basing their opinions on? Constitutionality? A donation or gift by a private citizen, paid for with private funds, given to a public institution for display is a "free excercise thereof". What do you call bypassing Congress to make law from the bench? What do you call making law from the bench that prohibits a citizen their Right to free excercise of Religion?

BTW, I am not a "feller"....even if I was, you are hardly ever right or funny.

Hermitt22 -
The word "shrinking" is actually NASA's word as of Sept.26,2002. (see above link)
Saying that man has the power to in any way affect the Earth is a little "full of ourselves" and Delusions of Grandeur to say the least...it's comparable to claims that ants are ruining your whole backyard!

Wolf -
Great post! Very compeling and well stated from experience...thank you.

Skunks - thats my point. If kids don't want to learn, particulary at a high school level when they should be aware that in the end, it is for their benefit and in their interest it is their own damn fault, not the system's when they fail miserably and work at maccyDs for the next 40 years of their pathetic lives.

Cairo - Don't you have save gods children meeting to go to or something? You keep marring otherwise interesting conversations with your inane prattle, it's getting annoying.
Oh by the way, i don't think you read your link, for some reason i did.

Stop clinging to straws and drown already.

So the system is perfecto++, and the fact that it doesn't work is entirely the fault of the clearly lazy and worthless students?

My intention was more to outline the problem than to specifically place blame anywhere. Sure, they -can- learn with the current system, but they could learn a lot -more-.

--Sk

No, I never said the system is perfect, I meant to explicitly state that in my original post but I think it got lost between the first and second versions although it was still applied. What I’m trying to say is that it is not always the fault of the system, the system cannot be perfect, there will always be shits who don't want to learn and the system should most certainly not be tailored towards them. Something both the public and private systems seem to suffer from is catering for the lowest common denominator.

Everybody -
Please note for the record that I was personally attacked first, which has always been the case...
but now I'm pointing it out beforehand.

Jaguar -
In case you failed to notice...I started this thread. So if my "inane prattle" that reveals how utterly STUPID you are embarrasses and "annoys" you...start a thread of your own to spew your worthless flatulence!!!

BTW - I am sure that you could ~read~ the article all day long, but managing to ~comprehend~ the meaning of it completely eludes you.
Allow me to simplify the meaning for you...
Researchers say that we have no control over the ozone, and we don't know the long term trend because it has nothing to do with us.

LOL...really, the lengths you go to prove you're an idiot are truly fascinating! You don't miss a trick!!!!

And about the school system...any system(Government or Business) that "loses" 2 Million dollars in one year...that system is severely broke!
As for the students...stop "social promotion" if they failed, flunk 'em!!!! Bad parents who raise bad children won't get involved unless their child is held back a grade.

Unfortunately for the most part the only involvement of the parents is to complain that the child is being held back ... without addressing or even understanding the reasons for this.

(Darnit ... there we go heading off track again)

Attempt to redeem myself here ... One thing that I personally think keeps getting people into difficulty is the promotion of religion over spirituality.

Religion is about doctrine and dogma and the things that people tend to get upset over ... my god is better than your god (or my conception/interpretation of the nature of god) seems to be a central theme.

Spirituality is in part the expression of a religious belief, but is more of a personal, experiential mode of thought.

Wars have been fought over religion time and time again. (consider ... today's terrorist actions in some ways are a continuation of the Crusades ...), but I can't offhand think of one fought over spirituality ...

Am I making ANY sense, or am I just suffering from sleep deprivation at this point?

*sighs*
What the article says is yes, the ozone hole got smaller this yea, due to extremely unusual weather conditions. That is all. The researchers wanted to stress that point so halfwits like you couldn't use it as some kind of evidence to support inane outdated theories.

It does not say that we cannot control the ozone layer, it does not say the hole/s has stopped getting bigger, and it does not refute basic scientific fact about the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer and the fact that we are responsible for the severe damage we have inflcited on it. Something i am acutely aware of here every day - we are on the edge of the hole and trust me, it does not take long to burn at all.

You are making some sense. I'm not sure about your definition of spirituality but i see your point. How would you go about promoting spirituality without religion? The idea interests me but a model for such an idea is rather hard to come by. Religion and spirituality as a subject is deeply interesting but its teaching will always cause discourse.

On the flipside, we're both wasting our time argueing with this prat so...

Well ... I don't know that I'd necessarily go about promoting anything ... that's kind of the trouble, you know ... selling one system over another is what leads to the problem.

On second thought, it kind of HAS been done ... A Course in Miracles, The Celestine Prophecy, and every book written by Dipak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, Michael Harner or Andrew Weil are pretty much packaging and selling spirituality as a concept separate from religion. I don't know that any one or combination of these folks have enough penetration in the marketplace (especially outside of the Western hemisphere) to have any real impact.

I don't know that there actually is an answer here ... I come from the perspective that humans are naturally divisive ... they seek out conflict whenever possible, and base that conflict on some observable or imagined difference. (race, politics, religion) ... there's always an us vs. them mentality ... our warriors are superior to your warriors, our gods can kick your god's ass, The Eagles rule and the Giants Suck. (Frankly, I don't much care about sports, but it is a modern expression of the warrior spirit in a lot of ways. Of course there's a lot more money involved.)

Quote:

On the flipside, we're both wasting our time argueing with this prat so...

I don't know about you, but where I am it's 0230 hrs on Christmas Eve. There's not a lot else going on here. And besides. I find this fun.

Actually, I can remember several pointed and baseless personal attacks on me, whereas I make every effort to keep my comments free from personal attacks.

I'll leave the environmental response to Jaguar, who did a well enough job.

I find it funny, however, that the price of education to Cairo is $2M. Obviously it's a random figure she pulled out of her ass, but it paints a pretty clear picture of where her head is.

Oh wait -- I think I just conflicted myself...oh well.

I like this discussion. Here it's only 12:30am on Christmas Eve, and, yeah, not much going on either.

So I've been thinking about this in the 5 minutes or whatever it takes for me to brush my teeth and get ready for bed, and I have a late night theory for you - so obviously, it's incredibly substantial. Basically, all major religions boil down to convincing people to be nice to other people. This idea has to be constantly repackaged for different regions, cultures and eras.

The problem is that people aren't going to believe what you say unless you wow them. So religions were forced to become more and more inventive and spectacular or else they wouldn't have anyone in their flock. Without a following, religions would fail. The fabric of society needs something like religion or else it gets torn apart. So the society's religion becomes key to its existence, and it ends up becoming intertwined with cultural identity and, in modern times, nationalism.

Western societies, however, are moving away from religion. At the same time, Western Europe is moving away from nationalism with the creation of the EU. I think there's a connection between these two trends, and I think the result will be a transcendence of religion - just like there will be a transcendence of nationalism. I think what we're seeing today is the last sputterings of religious bickering, and I think the eventual goal of globalization is to equalize.

I realize there's a lot of holes in this logic, and its probably been said a thousand times, but I'm too sleepy to notice right now. :)

(slang prays quietly for god to have mercy on Hermit for his "evil thoughts" )

Only 8:42 christmas eve here.

I can't say i'm familiar with any of them =( The question for me is whether it is about spirituality or a particualr form of spirituality. Personally i think the only way a shool should have anything to do with the teaching of religion would be to get pretty much every religious and spiritual text in a room, with a big sign over the door saying enter at your own peril and dump the kids in there for a few hours.

I think that religion's sole purpose is to answer unanswerable questions. People being nice to each other is just a nice side benefit. See, some people just can't stand not knowing the answer to some questions. Rather than face the uncertainty and fear than comes with not knowing, they just make something up and call it the truth. It's very comforting to have all the answers. Many people aren't so much concerned with the truth as they are with eliminating their doubt and fear as quckly as possible (very uncomfortable things to have).

Yes, let’s.

The founding father’s wanted total and complete separation of church and state. They wanted ALL RELIGIONS completely out of government and government out of ALL RELIGIONS! The United States was first among nations to adopt a secular Constitution. The founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted citizens to be free to support the church of their choice, or no religion at all. Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary.

It is vital to buttress the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" which has served our nation so well.

The president doesn’t have to swear on a bible, nor does anyone who is going to testify in a court of law. All they must do is affirm they are telling the truth. And any mention of the bible, god, or prayers in any official government capacity is a clear and direct violation of the 1st amendment. That includes in oaths, public prayers in government buildings, putting the word “god” on our currency, etc. Chaplains aren’t supposed to be of any particular denomination and many people would like to pray before they are sent to die in an illegal war to defend some other country so I can see a military chaplain. The congressional chaplain is probably so they can pray for forgiveness before they rape the American public, etc. Again if this is non-denominational, done privately, and not funded with public money I have no argument.

Let’s look at what the founding fathers thought about Christianity.


Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.


John Adams

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Thomas Paine

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."


James Madison

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

George Washington

” The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

Yet another fallacious argument from you. Establishment of religion refers to one or several religions and whether you contend the 10 commandments represents 1 or a thousand religions it still represents religions and thus has no place in government.

Another fallacious argument. The courts aren’t to “interpret” anything, especially the supreme court. They are to settle disputes among the states and to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the constitution. They don’t define it, and aren’t authorities over it. They answer to the constitution. They routinely make unconstitutional rulings for what they deem to be in “national interest” despite not having this authority. They look for ways around the constitution rather than defending it. And nowhere in their description of powers are they granted permission to “interpret” the constitution. The constitution doesn’t require interpretation. It’s written in simple English, not Swahili. It means what it says; nothing more; nothing less.

The entire constitution and declaration of independence were carefully written to be secular documents that made a clear wall of separation between all things religious (from any religion or from several) and all things government. Only later did religious zealots like the temperance movement put the word “god” on our money despite it not belonging there.

Donating a copy of the 10 commandments to be posted at a courthouse isn’t an exercise of your religious freedom. Nice try mental midget. Praying is an exercise of religion, trying to post your religious doctrine in places of government business is an attempt to force your religion down the throats of other Americans.

Neither the American government, nor the laws of America are based on Judeo-Christian principles, morality, or beliefs. And they never will be.

The founding fathers created America so that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Diests, and even Atheists would be equal under the law and so they could be free to practice their religion without government interference and that they could have their government free from religious interference. They had seen Quakers burn women at the stake and people being arrested for not believing in the bible in north America and seen even worse injustices and atrocities in Europe due to the mixing of church and state. This is why they created a secular nation where people could have the freedom of religion, but also the freedom from it.

Here's are a couple of my favorite websites for those of you who want a laugh and have a minute:

http://jhuger.com/kisshank.mv

http://www.jesusdressup.com

Talking of education: 7 US States cut back the school week to 4 days

'Nuff said really...

Keeping up with the times
 

This got my attention. Toward the middle of the article, it points out that "The tradeoff is that students in the four-day system have to go to school 7.5 hours per day to get the same amount of instruction that the standard five-day, six-hour schedule provides. That means even 6-year-old first-graders have to be in class from 8:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. each day."

So, no, the students in these districts are not losing 20% of their instructional time. In fact, this may be a real boon to families with two parents working, or single parents, who have to come up with before-and-after-school care for their kids. Perhaps this move will be more succesful and widepread than the push for year-round school has been.

From this (and next) weeks The Economist:

Jaguar -
*Rolls eyes* First you say,"What the article says is yes, the ozone hole got smaller this year, due to extremely unusual weather conditions. That is all."
Then you say,"...the fact that we are responsible for the severe damage we have inflicted on it."
So...you disagree with NASA, or you think that we control the weather! Either way you're wrong. If we control the weather, why are the forecasters always wrong? And why don't we just turn on the sprinklers over drought areas? And whoever is in charge of my area's temp. dial...keep it set on 72, K? No more of this 102 in the summer and 32 in the winter!(end of sarcasm)
Hmmmm, "True scientists have no faith in science."
So by your own admission your "basic scientific fact" isn't a fact because science keeps evolving with new data that leads elsewhere. You refuted it yourself!

Hermit22 -
Yeah, Jaguar did a well enough job if you totally ignore NASA and common sense! Ha! *weighing the options here* Hmmmm, who's more credible? Jaguar or NASA, NASA or Jaguar??? I rest my case!
Actually I meant to type $200 Million dollars per year, it was late and I rushed past the "00"...
Hey, I actually made the school system look good by my typo!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa043001a.htm

I don't say things out of my ass, my recall may be a little off but the message is the same and I can back it up....but idiots insist on finding that out about me the hard way! I don't mind, it's rather fun to watch the idiots reduced to "it's a waste of my time to argue with you!" Which happens when they have no argument!

Radar -
Still regurgitating the same crap in a longer, more irrational way revealing your Tyrannical thought process, I see....You are spinning like a top, my friend! Barfing out talking points from activist websites only works if you know what you are talking about, trouble is, when you do learn what you are talking about you realize the talking points are WRONG!
Address the "make no law" issue, address the "not prohibiting an individual's free exercise thereof" issue, address the "courts are making law from the bench" issue...all from my previous post!

1. No, the term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, thus cannot be judged by our courts...unless they are "interpreting" the Constitution. Separation of church and state is an ideal that makes sure the Government can not overtake and control the church as our Founders saw Britain and other Monarchys do. The Constitution and Declaration are NOT Godless documents, they both acknowledge and recognize Religion/God. The Constitution not only grants citizens the Right to support the church of their choice, but also the Right to "free exercise thereof"...meaning not to prohibit an individuals actions, thoughts, and words concerning Religion.
2. I am not Christian, and do not follow the teachings of Jesus...so I agree with Jefferson, somewhat. But who am I to unconstitutionally demand that those who do be prohibited?...The Taliban?!!!!
You see, the difference between you and me is my America offers a choice. Your America prohibits all except your belief! In my America individuals don't have to mention the Bible, God, or prayers...but they can if they want(as Constitutionally protected in the no prohibitting clause), your America is clearly UNConstitutional!
3. I said our courts decide and interpret LAW, not the Constitution. You are interpreting the "Congress shall make no law..." part by insisting that Constitutionality extends beyond "making law" when it doesn't!
4. Webster's definition of exercise: The act of bringing into play or realizing in action.
Any form of action is "exercising"... so don't put limits that are UNConstitutional, Mr. Taliban-man!
We the People own those buildings, and I believe all Religions should donate to them. That encourages a multi-religion nation.
5. The Government has not interfered until it makes law...YOU, on the otherhand, are UNConstitutionally interfering by ramming a Godless Communist, no choice America down the throats of 90+% of American citizens who want to have a choice!

I think listening to radar and Cairo argue has been the highlight of my night of being online. This is fun :)

Its better than tennis

I don't know wolf in tennis at least the players attempt to change strategies when there getting their asses kicked.