Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".
Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.
No comprende.

La mierda, si cada una sintiera tiene gusto de usted, el ACLU estaría
sin trabajo y el desempleo conseguiría incluso más alto.



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:06:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/6/09 9:51 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:55 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.


True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.


Millions of people have died for Jesus, a sure sign that the empire was
founded on love.

Millions have died for education, government, eugenics, ethnic
cleansing, and science, a sure sign that yours is a non sequitur.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On 10/6/09 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:06:52 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/6/09 9:51 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:55 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.


True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.


Millions of people have died for Jesus, a sure sign that the empire was
founded on love.

Millions have died for education, government, eugenics, ethnic
cleansing, and science, a sure sign that yours is a non sequitur.


The claim was made that jesus founded his empire upon love, and that
millions would die for him.

I agree.

Obviously, the point was far too subtle for your enfeebled mind.




--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".

Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.

No comprende.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:41 -0400, Jim wrote:

La mierda, si cada una sintiera tiene gusto de usted, el ACLU estaría
sin trabajo y el desempleo conseguiría incluso más alto.



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

Su español es muy un poquito.

Probably a Google translation.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:22:15 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:11:41 -0400, Jim wrote:

La mierda, si cada una sintiera tiene gusto de usted, el ACLU estaría
sin trabajo y el desempleo conseguiría incluso más alto.



estaria, conseguiria, and alto do not compute.

The **** if each one feel has taste of you, the ACLU ****** without
work and the unemployment *********** even but ( did you mean sustanvio?)

Makes even less sense than Johns comment.

Su español es muy un poquito.

Probably a Google translation.

Actually, no. Yahoo. :)

I'll admit it.

Babelfish is fun if you don't have anything else to do. Type in a
couple of sentences and translate them in and out of various
languages.

High entertaining sometimes. :)

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:50:04 -0400, Gene
wrote:

These guys haven't figured out their job isn't to be scientists, but
to be PR folks at the will and pleasure of their "Holy Father."

Now that's a little harsh don't you think?

It's often said that Jesuits are the vanguard of progressive thinking
in the Church - in particular after the Restoration of 1814/15. While
they could be viewed as "Soldiers of Christ", it's also true that the
Jesuit order has been on the hairy edge of revisionist/reformative
thinking in terms not only of theology, but science and humanities.

The good Brother reflects that thinking - that faith and science can
coexist and each discipline can learn from the other.

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".
Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.
No comprende.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

We're on the same page then?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:55:53 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:

To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.

Which is a curiosity because a lot of what they believe to be "fact"
and "science" are also articles of faith.

Amusing in some ways.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Tom.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


I guess the "faith" part of science is the belief that the use of
observation to confirm a hypothesis will bring the truth; whereas, the faith
of religion involves certitude without direct evidence. Science can be a
religion to some, but I think it should be taken with the same grain of salt
that science uses for everything else. Religion should stick to things like
good moral foundations (and be certain in them without imposing ritual and
dogma), and a religious person should act out those foundations in his/her
daily life. Faith has a place in society. It should be learned from
observing those around us who are truly religious (doesn't matter what the
religion is). Science also has a place in society. It should be taught,
since it gives us so much.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 5:55 am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:52:22 -0500, wrote:
To contend that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a
trump suit in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

The problem is that Faith has power and that is what annoys the more
vorciforous objectors - they don't understand the nature of belief.

True. Napoleon recognized the power of Christian fait (If I may single
it out) when he said:

""I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man.
Between him and every other person in the world
there is no possible term of comparison.
Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires.
But on what did we rest the creations of our genius?
Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love;
and at this hour millions of people would die for Him."

I'd say he was right.


Unfortunately, that message has been lost, especially in recent times.

--
Nom=de=Plume