A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================

I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.

How very diverse of you. You do recognize that people do have a right to the
free exercise of religion down here, don¹t you? I do understand that up in
PC Canada, insulting any ethnic group is a crime, but I don't think there's
anything wrong with the majority of people in the US requiring their
government policies to reflect the majority viewpoint. That's why we have
elections, after all.


Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.

Your argument fails because no one, in Kansas or anywhere else, is demanding
any such thing. You are completely mischaracterizing the debate, and appear
to be doing so deliberately. Either that or you are just abysmally ignorant
of the actual controversy.


TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.

To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies.

You make the unproven assumption that creationism is a "lie." It's not. It's
a theory, albeit a weak one. A better description of creationism is
"intelligent design" of the universe, which is something that I think you
will find more than a few reputable scientists have questions about.

Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.

Sorry, but that's the Ghetto argument. "Gimme money because I live in a
ghetto." My response is: "If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto. If you don't want to, then you CHOOSE to live in the
ghetto, and I have no sympathy for your plight."

Sell the house, pack the kids up and move elsewhere, or quit bitching.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to. great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to.

Look awfully similar? I think they are basically the same thing.

The Taliban weren't exactly the most creative of folks, they got a lot
of their ideas from those who came up with a religion before them, the
christians and jews.

It's amazing how well they copied the ideas of some person forcing other
to do as they wish all because that one person claims to be more in
touch with something bigger than us all than the other person. Religion
is basically a power game, with just enough spirituality to keep the
simple people from seeing the truth. The truth is that by using religion
to make people conform to an idea, you can make those people do things
they would never do for money or by threat of direct force.

Freedom would be allowing people to believe in what they want, without
being worried that some religious leader immediately convicts what they
want or believe as herecy. Funny how the church still advocates
abstinence (sp?) as a way to prevent AIDS or how it prevents the use of
birth control in countries where the population explosion is causing
gigantic problems.

Also interesting how in most developed countries there is a direct
correlation between the level of education of the population and the
amount of people still believing in some kind of higher being.
In most of Europe the amount of people still going to some kind of
church dwindles by the day, although a lot of people discover other, not
related to some church or constricting religion, forms of spirituality.

great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the
population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their
priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating
many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the
gene pool.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko wrote:

That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the
population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their
priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating
many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the
gene pool.

Fortunately Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora and had 5 children.

That's where the Usenet is so useful -- we can all learn... your
response caused me to do some research and i came up with slightly
different info..

"1525 heiratete sie Martin Luther. Dem Ehepaar wurden sechs Kinder
geboren, von denen vier das Erwachsenenalter erreichten." -- 6 kids, 4
of whom survived into adulthood... who knows which source is correct,
but thanks for sending me on a learning journey.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:

Fortunately Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora and had 5 children.

That's where the Usenet is so useful -- we can all learn... your
response caused me to do some research and i came up with slightly
different info..

"1525 heiratete sie Martin Luther. Dem Ehepaar wurden sechs Kinder
geboren, von denen vier das Erwachsenenalter erreichten." -- 6 kids, 4
of whom survived into adulthood... who knows which source is correct,
but thanks for sending me on a learning journey.

The "5 children" factoid came from extras with the DVD movie "Luther"
starring Joseph Fiennes, Bruno Ganz, Peter Ustinov, and Claire Cox.

The first daughter (second child) Elisabeth died soon, 8 months old.
The second daughter (third child) Magdalena lasted until 13 years old.
The other four (three sons and one daughter) lived until adulthood.
One son became a lawyer, one a theologian, one a physician, and the
third daughter Margarethe married into a wealthy Prussian family.
So any number from 4 to 6 is correct, I'd say.

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:



BCITORGB wrote:

weiser says:
=========
"If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto.
=========

did i say something about a ghetto here?

and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want
to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar
"ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt
look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to.

Look awfully similar? I think they are basically the same thing.

The Taliban weren't exactly the most creative of folks, they got a lot
of their ideas from those who came up with a religion before them, the
christians and jews.

It's amazing how well they copied the ideas of some person forcing other
to do as they wish all because that one person claims to be more in
touch with something bigger than us all than the other person. Religion
is basically a power game, with just enough spirituality to keep the
simple people from seeing the truth. The truth is that by using religion
to make people conform to an idea, you can make those people do things
they would never do for money or by threat of direct force.

Freedom would be allowing people to believe in what they want, without
being worried that some religious leader immediately convicts what they
want or believe as herecy.

Does that include allowing the freedom to believe in a particular religion
and the free and open choice to subscribe to the teachings of that religion,
or are you demanding universal secularism?

The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities demanded,
whether you were an adherent of Islam or not. The Catholic Church today does
not demand that ANYONE subscribe to it's dogma, although it does demand that
if you choose to be a Catholic, you obey the church in matters of
religiosity. No one is requiring non-Catholics to act as Catholics, it's
just that you can't BE a Catholic if you refuse to follow the teachings of
the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a private club, and it has
rules, and like any private club, if you don't obey the rules, you can't be
a member.

Funny how the church still advocates
abstinence (sp?) as a way to prevent AIDS

Abstinence just happens to be the ONLY way to entirely prevent
sexually-transmitted AIDS 100% of the time. That is a scientific fact.

What, I ask you, is wrong with advocating abstinence? It's not like they are
demanding abstinence and are proposing criminal sanctions for promiscuity.


or how it prevents the use of
birth control in countries where the population explosion is causing
gigantic problems.

How, exactly, is the Catholic Church "preventing" the use of birth control
anywhere in the world? The Catholic Church may *condemn* the use of birth
control, and may refuse to participate in the dissemination of information
and the distribution of birth control, but it has no legal power to
"prevent" anyone from using any form of birth control they choose. The
Catholic Church's stance on contraception is based in its religious beliefs,
which it is entitled to hold, even if you happen to disagree with them. Or
are you suggesting that the Catholic Church be denied its right of free
speech on the matter of contraception?


Also interesting how in most developed countries there is a direct
correlation between the level of education of the population and the
amount of people still believing in some kind of higher being.

Any proof for this remarkable assertion?

In most of Europe the amount of people still going to some kind of
church dwindles by the day, although a lot of people discover other, not
related to some church or constricting religion, forms of spirituality.

And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet that
is seeing an increase in members.


great! have your
regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a
purposeful dumbing down of your children.

That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the
population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their
priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating
many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the
gene pool.

Interesting thesis, albeit entirely unfounded and untrue. Can you say
"Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Can you say
"Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on?

While nominally Catholic, neither was religious. If you look further
back than the Renaisance, you'll see that his comments are essentially
true - only the clergy were taught to read and write and reading
in Latin was forbidden for the everyone else.

Mike

Scott weiser says:
===================
The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they
would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities
demanded,
====================

And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban. I see
that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for
the Catholic Church of the Inquisition? Or the Catholic Church that
scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science? I'll stick with my
initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of
fundamentalists and another.

Weiser says:
================
And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet
that
is seeing an increase in members.
====================

Is this a good thing?

But why is it losing people in Europe? Can it be that educated people
find little of value in the teachings of the church.?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott weiser says:
===================
The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the
Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they
would
beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities
demanded,
====================

And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban.

That's a broad and largely untrue statement. I would agree that any dogma,
unfettered, CAN become totalitarian, but so what?

I see
that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for
the Catholic Church of the Inquisition?

That was then, this is now.

Or the Catholic Church that
scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science?

That was then, this is now. Even the Catholic Church can change.

I'll stick with my
initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of
fundamentalists and another.

A not unreasonable proposition, which you can apply just as easily to
"fundamentalist" scientists.


Weiser says:
================
And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet
that
is seeing an increase in members.
====================

Is this a good thing?

Is it a bad thing? I say that anything that gets you through the day, makes
you happy and doesn't hurt someone else is a good thing.




But why is it losing people in Europe?

Is it losing people? Are you sure?


Can it be that educated people
find little of value in the teachings of the church.?

Can it be that you are wrong?


frtzw906


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser