Re: Evolving Evolution... the " Big Bang " theory is a Catholic priests invention ( believe it, or not )
Posted by: thomas p.
Bill Carver skrev:
> In article <email@example.com>,
> "thomas p." wrote:
> > Christians used and justified force as a way of spreading and
> > maintaining Christianity for most of its history. The very idea of
> > toleration for other opinions was considered sinful. Christianity is
> > not unique in this; it is an inevitable feature of any religion or
> > belief that thinks it has "The Truth".
> My white european ancestors in this nation held slaves. Does that make
> me a racist.
Did I say that you did? I am not talking about you or even about just
Christianity but any dogmatic religion.
Have I held slaves? Does Christianity at this date and
> time kill to convert without provicatio.
Did I say it did?
Please don't being up Bush
> here. You may not agree with his reasons, but we did have a little
> terrorist problem recently. And there are plenty of people in the
> Muslim world that are happy we're there. We haven't conquored other
> nations for the sake of religion. At worst, it was blood for oil as
> liberals say, at best it was freeing a nation from a tyrannical
> dictatorship for the sake of our own national security.
I said nothing about the above at all.
> > That would mean that the religious freedom guaranteed to all would not
> > exist. Prayer is allowed in public school now, just as long as it is a
> > private matter including prayer in on-campus religious clubs. It is
> > misleading to say that prayer is banned in public schools.
> It has been banned many times around this nation during graduation
> ceremonies and other venues.
Every single person at such a ceremony has the right to pray, and every
single person there has the right to not be subjected to religious
practices they do not agree with - and that includes religious people
as well as atheists. It is not an "atheist problem", and prayer has
not been banned.
>I'm just waiting for the day the ACLU
> comes after military chaplains.
> > >I want there to be freedom for
> > > teachers to share their faith or at least the teachings of their faith
> > > with students without fear of losing their jobs.
> > In other words you want the state to pay for the teaching of religion,
> > and I somehow doubt you would apply that freedom to any faith.
> Not necessarily. I want the state not to omit in it's social teaching
> the religious beliefs of many cultures.
That is legal now.
> religious teachings of all religions are censored. Any reference to
> christianity in social studies class is forbidden except for the
> crusades which you elude to earlier. Judiasm is also not allowed.
> However we do have Islamic tolerance classes, and plenty of teachings of
> what buddists believe. I could literally see a class at the high school
> level that would be entitled something like spirituality and man and
> Man's beliefs. And of course include belief that no God exists. I just
> don't want the cultures of man in social studies classes to be
> purposfully not taught.
You are changing direction. First you wanted school led prayer (the
prayer determined by the majority). Are you backing off from school
led prayer? I certainly have nothing against a history of religion
class taught from a neutral position, nor is that illegal now.
> > I want the freedom to
> > > display a menora, nativity scene, or crescent or other religious symbol
> > > on public land during a national holiday season. Just as you may place
> > > a picture of yourself on public property to worship yourself since
> > > you're your own god.
> > You must know that that is both silly and insulting.
> I'm sure you'll get over it.
That's it? Oh, I get it! It was another joke, right? No doubt you
are aware that the remark was silly, but you just thought it was funny.
In any event it does not look like you are willing to defend the
remark or to apologise for the gratuitous insult. I have to admit that
it makes a rational discussion difficult, but that couldn't be why you
do it could it?
> > >I want Catholic Priests to not have to hide from
> > > death in China and other parts of the world for simply sharing their
> > > beliefs.
> > So do I. The very best way to protect religious freedom for all is to
> > keep government out of it.
> that's just our point. In these modern times, Our government is trying
> to prevent religious people from expressing their beliefs in fear of
> lawsuits from people who are somehow offended by people talking to no
> one (at least how an athiest would see it)
Perhaps you did not know that public schools are part of the
government. Not only atheists have opposed such things as religious
ceremonies in public schools. The ACLU has also pled cases for a
number of churches and religious parents who felt their rights had been
violated by the religious activities of the public schools their
children attended. The truth is that children can pray in public
schools, since there is no law against private prayer; and on-campus
religious clubs are allowed, where, one assumes, the students pray.
> > > Finally, you are free. Free from God. I see no shackles. I see no one
> > > preventing you from having this conversation. I see no one at your door
> > > threatening your life and I have freely listened to you. We don't
> > > agree, but I will fight to the death to save your right to do so
And I am against having you subjected to religious ceremonies that
offend you, so I guess we can agree that any prayer under the auspices
of any government authority would be wrong.