OT - Red State

[natehale1971]

Sanjuro... i don't know where you think the Conservatives in the US want to force out science when it disagrees with the bible. All we are asking for is that both sides of the issue be shown to children so that they can make up their own minds.

Evolution does happen, but there is evidence that 'human evolution' from the various hominds are actually false since many of the hominds that we are suppose to have evoloved from, actually existed at the same time as homo sapiens sapiens.

To say that ONLY evolution has been supported by scientifically collected data ignores this simple fact that fosil evidence points to the existence that those early homids co-existed alongside 'modern' humanity.

[SOAPBOX MODE]
All the scientifically collected data supports evolution; even complex organs like the eye can be shown to have evolved in stages, starting with skin cells sensitive to light, and in ways where each successive mutation gave a survival advantage. However, evolution does not disprove the existence of God- it only contradicts the most limited literal interpretation of the Bible.
Religious fundamentalism in the Middle East frightens me less than it does in the developed West; the historical example frightens me a great deal.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, science was lost to Europe for nearly a thousand years. For most of that time, science continued in Arabia- in fact, the language of science was Arabic. The legacy of this can be seen to this day- we use Arabic numerals, and most of the brighter stars have Arabic names- there are many other examples.
At some point, however, the political leadership in the Arab nations decided the people would be easier to control if they were more restricted in their thinking- so it was enforced that only the Koran held the truth, and that anything which contradicted the Koran in any way was not only false, but evil. Arab science effectively ended in a generation.
Now we have, in the West (with the USA as the extreme example) a school of thought that seeks to suppress science where it contradicts the Bible. Please note: just because previous posters have said something I disagree with, does NOT mean they follow this school of thought. On the contrary, posters on this board have shown a great willingness to see both sides of the argument.
Religion has its own spaces where it can spread its message, and many of its teachings are entirely relevant to even modern life- but let science have its space. Don't let the West go the way of the last scientific culture!
[/SOAPBOX MODE]

[Webstral]

I'm guilty of supporting the movement of the thread towards the political, which is against the philosophy of the guy paying for all of this to be maintained. This means that it's my responsibility to manage things. So far, everyone has behaved themselves pretty well. Let's keep it that way. If we want to have a discussion about evolution, let's start a new OT thread about evolution. If we want to have a discussion about politics (that includes you, Webstral), well, there are plenty of places for that, including PM.

[Sanjuro]

fossil evidence points to the existence that those early homids co-existed alongside 'modern' humanity.

Nate, I'm not sure how that contradicts evolution in any way- we're still here and the early hominids have gone the way of the dinosaurs, because we proved better able to survive.
I do not believe all Conservatives in the US want to force out the teaching of science- just that there is a minority who do. That minority (not restricted to the USA), pose, IMO, a greater threat to the future of the West than any terrorists.
If Creationism is to be taught in science classes, churches should be giving readings from Darwin...
Edited to add: while I was writing this post, Webstral posted the above warning. If I have offended anyone, I apologise- and nate is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, hence my trying to win him round.
Going back to the original topic- Red State sounds really interesting, I will have to look out for it!

[natehale1971]

Nate, I'm not sure how that contradicts evolution in any way- we're still here and the early hominids have gone the way of the dinosaurs, because we proved better able to survive.
I do not believe all Conservatives in the US want to force out the teaching of science- just that there is a minority who do. That minority (not restricted to the USA), pose, IMO, a greater threat to the future of the West than any terrorists.
If Creationism is to be taught in science classes, churches should be giving readings from Darwin...

That's the same kind of argument of asking someone the question, "When did you stop beating your wife"

You should teach each of the theories EQUALLY. If you teach one theory, you should teach the others along with it. This allows the students to LEARN each side of an argument and make up their own minds. To only produce one theory is the same thing as promoting just that theory. And a school should be promoting learning as a whole, and not promoting one theory over all others.

It's like the fact there are schools that do not teach the holocaust because they feel it offends the Muslims that go to school there.

[Fusilier]

Having creation taught in the science class. Both Creation and Evolution should be taught in science class, because both theories have valid points, and by teaching both... you allow the student to make up their own mind on the subject. And that's part of teaching critical thinking.

No, there is absolutely nothing valid regarding creation anymore than there is for teaching 'flat earth' in geography class. There is nothing in the realm of science that supports creation. If you have any evidence for creation, you need to collect your Nobel prize immediately. There is a very good reason that not a single national academy of sciences in the western world include creation in their literature and why not a single accredited university includes creation in the science programs.

Should we teach the alternative to the holocaust in history class and leave it up to students to decide if it really happened or not Should sex ed be split between the vaginal birth and the stork Should alchemy be taught alongside chemistry and allow the students to decide How about demon possession alongside germ theory

The education system has a responsibility to encourage free thought among students but within the limits of their ability. If the US taught creation, you'd be the laughing stock of the western world and for good reason.

And who's creation myth will you want to be taught anyways Considering how there are over 900 gods and thousands of sects within each, who gets lucky There isn't time to cover any where near 5% of them.

And finally, this is an education matter, not a political one. So why in the hell is the party that wants to keep government limited, putting there nose in something they are obviously unqualified for

Banning abortion. Not Banning Abortion, but stopping the use of abortion as a pro-active form of birth control.

That's not true for all of the candidates. When asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life". Herman Cain is also pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. But again, my point is that party who wants to (by your words) govern the least and have limited powers is once again telling people what to do or not do.

Halting stem cell research They just did not want to use fetal stem cells from fetuses that had been created for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Several of the leading republicans are against embryonic stem cells - which by the way don't come from fetuses but embryos that are no older than 5 days since fertilized. Fetus don't form until their 9th week. But again that's not the point.

Banning same sex unionsNo. They are not against Same Sex Unions. In fact they supported the use of Civil Unions instead of the term "Marriage" for same sex couples. But I'm so conversation I disagree with the Government having ANYTHING to do with marriage.

So they changed the name and benefits - discrimination. Let's allow blacks to vote, but we'll call it something else.

I'm talking about marriage like it pertains to you and me and should be for anyone. Several of the candidates don't agree however and feel its up to them to decide who gets to call each other a husband or wife. Again, intrusive.

I agree with you on the last part though. I'll take it step further and include religion as well though.

Would close planned parenthood A good thing actually. Have you read anything about who these people are Or what their goal was when they were founded Do a quick google search for Marget Sanger quotes and read about how she wanted to use abortion to remove the weeds from American society & Culture. when over 50% of african-american pregnancies end in abortion, the word genocide really springs to mind.

I checked on Margaret Sanger. Apparently she lived in the 1920s... and Planned Parenthood today has stated they "finds these views objectionable and outmoded".

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

I see contraception and cancer screening services... what are the up to date criticisms that warrant a political party being invasive

Continue drug war More and more conservatives are turning against the Drug War, and are actually listening to the Libertarians on legalizing and taxing the hell out of drugs.

Good to hear.

Mandate school prayer No. They aren't wanting to mandate school prayer. They are wanting to allow School Prayer. Children have been expelled from school for bringing a bible to read or praying in school. Teachers have been fired for praying over their meals.

Doesn't this conflict with governing the least and having limited powers There is a distinct separation between church and state, and they want to change that to allow religion in.

Interestingly though, nominee Gingrich would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment and thinks that federal aid should go only to schools that allow voluntary prayer. WTF

Extend the war in A-stanIf we're going to fight a war, we should be doing it to win, not pussyfoot around. If we're not there to win, we should be getting the hell out. More conservatives feel this way than just contining the war.

Not my point.

Andd as I pointed out. Many of these stances are just plan wrong, and taking the talking points of the left and ignoring what conservatives (and the TEA Party) has actually said or done.

I'm only going by what the next hopeful presidents have said.

[Fusilier]

You should teach each of the theories EQUALLY. If you teach one theory, you should teach the others along with it.

This isn't correct. Only one of these is a theory, and its evolution. In science a theory is not used in the same fashion as common speech. It doesn't mean a guess or a hunch.

In science, a theory is an explanation of facts. In that sense, evolution is both a theory and fact. Creation has no facts, therefore it is not a theory - it's what we call an untested hypothesis.

Theories also must be falsifiable and with evolution it is, and creation isn't.

Remember, gravity is "just" a theory.

Evolution does happen, but there is evidence that 'human evolution' from the various hominds are actually false since many of the hominds that we are suppose to have evoloved from, actually existed at the same time as homo sapiens sapiens.

Ahh... you do realize that evolution is not a ladder. It is not linear. Of course they existed at the same time or evolution wouldn't be possible.

[Fusilier]

If we want to have a discussion about evolution, let's start a new OT thread about evolution.

Oops. I didn't see that.

[natehale1971]

And finally, this is an education matter, not a political one. So why in the hell is the party that wants to keep government limited, putting there nose in something they are obviously unqualified for

How about the fact that there are schools and judges who are throwing children and teachers out of school for praying over their meals, or brining a bible to school to read


That's not true for all of the candidates. When asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life". Herman Cain is also pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. But again, my point is that party who wants to (by your words) govern the least and have limited powers is once again telling people what to do or not do.

And as I stated, the Party does not want to outlaw abortion. That was what you said. Not that people are pro-life. Outlawing abortion is not on the table, except in the minds of the left who see any kind of laws ristricting abortion as a wild pack of people with pitchforks and torches.

Yes they wanted to ban partial-birth abortion, because it's a horrendous practice that EVEN THE GUY WHO CREATED IT stated puts the life of the mother in danger. And that it is an abhorent and unnecessary practice.

Several of the leading republicans are against embryonic stem cells - which by the way don't come from fetuses but embryos that are no older than 5 days since fertilized. Fetus don't form until their 9th week. But again that's not the point.


So they changed the name and benefits - discrimination. Let's allow blacks to vote, but we'll call it something else.

And once again the race card get's thrown in to the fray and why politcal discussions can't be civil anymore.


I'm talking about marriage like it pertains to you and me and should be for anyone. Several of the candidates don't agree however and feel its up to them to decide who gets to call each other a husband or wife. Again, intrusive.

What we call marriage in today's world is a civil union. You have to go to the government and buy a liscene to 'get married'... but without that lisence you aren't legally married. That's not marriage in my book. Putting the goverment involved in marriage you have what we have today.

I agree with you on the last part though. I'll take it step further and include religion as well though.

The government shoud have nothing to do with Marriage, it's a religious insitution... it's something taht you and your partner (or partners) are coming together infront of God to join your lives together. And allowing the government to get involved is just plan wrong.


I checked on Margaret Sanger. Apparently she lived in the 1920s... and Planned Parenthood today has stated they "finds these views objectionable and outmoded".

But yet they are still doing the kinds of things she wanted, like i said ealier 50% of african-amercan pregnanices are ending in abortion, and Planned Parenthood sets up their clinics in minority neighborhoods, and focus their advertisements towards miniorities. They might find those views objectionable, they are still doing what she wanted Planned Parenthood to do in the first place.


Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

this isn't true... sever different groups have shown that Planned Parenthood does not provide screenings that they are claiming too. i just did a google search for planned parenthood and cancer screenings. and while they claim to be giving them, you are hard pressed to find any of their clinics carrying them out.

And the you also have the fact that Planned Parenthood makes more than enough money on their own to support what they are doing, and that they just don't need Federal funding.


Doesn't this conflict with governing the least and having limited powers There is a distinct separation between church and state, and they want to change that to allow religion in.

Interestingly though, nominee Gingrich would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment and thinks that federal aid should go only to schools that allow voluntary prayer. WTF

Let's see... are you saying that stop sending money to schools that throw kids and teachers out of school for praying is a bad thing By a school doing that, they are poking their noses in to people's personal lives. just like you think the Republicans are wanting to do when it comes to other things as well. And the seperation of Church and State statement was about limiting the power of the STATE in influencing or controlling the church. Not the Church influencing the state.

And they aren't trying to change things to allow religion in, they are trying to allow people to not be punished for being religious. Because the way our country is suppose to be, you are allowed to be as religoius (or not) as you want to be.


I'm only going by what the next hopeful presidents have said.

And I'm going by what I have seen, heard and done. I'm a conservative and proud of it. And having someone call me a bigoit, a racist or homophobe is just plan wrong. Because I'm not, and the ones who I do know who are bigoited, racist and homophobic are not Conservatives but quite the other side of the isle. Anyone who thinks that an entire group of people are incapable of taking care of themselves without the nanny state to lead them about by the hand is the real hateful bigoit in my opinion.

[natehale1971]

Wow Fus... take a serious discussion and try to derail it with stupidity. No wonder the left is becoming a bunch of nutballs like Bob Beckel and Ed Schultz. You Just can't keep things civil.

[Webstral]

Gentlemen, I know everyone wants to have the last word--or at least feel certain his position is understood. Got it. Let's PM these, please. Include as wide a circle of recipients as you wish. Pure politics is on the no-no list for Kato. As a moderator appointed by Kato, I'm going to enforce his policies--after admitting that I contributed to their non-observance. PM the politics, please, regardless of how reasonable you think your ideas are. Yes, that means me, too.

[Fusilier]

I don't think you understand. Read this below...

Conservatives in the United States for the most part believe that the government that governs the least, governs the best. And that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government.

My point was that despite the claims of the conservatives ideology, as outlined by yourself, it is not happening.

I then gave examples as to how I felt the republicans we doing the opposite - and NOT limited their powers and NOT governing the least.

My original intentions are not, and are still not, to argue the reasons of which is better for abortion, the drug war, or the universal human right to marry someone, etc. It is to show that the conservatives are being invasive and governing a lot more than they like to say they are. I repeat, I am not arguing for or against any of those points.

Wow Fus... take a serious discussion and try to derail it with stupidity. No wonder the left is becoming a bunch of nutballs like Bob Beckel and Ed Schultz. You Just can't keep things civil.

I really don't see what you mean. I didn't attack you at all.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

The problem with some of the Old guard republicans is they are just one side of the same coin. The political class. They really are not much of a true conservative. Just a bunch of Hypocrites like the rest of the liberal bunch.

As far as invasive measures, the Left is way more guilty of it in my opinion, and the right as they claim to be just roll over and let it happen, they are too afraid to stand up, because of the invasive PC that pervades society, the race card that keeps getting played even though its not true etc etc.....

Apparently when the left changes something in an institution or organization its enlightened and fair and if the right wants to do it its a bad thing and they are called all kinds of names.

The Tea Party movement is trying hard to make and keep the politicians keep there word and do what is constitutional, but unfortunately the liberal progressive mindset which has ingrained it self way to far into the system and its gonna take a while. I hope to see some of it before I pass on.

The worst greed is the greed for what others have instead of working for it.

Step back and take a breather Nate. Do not take it too personal what others state on this site. They like you have what they believe. Even though they may be wrong ;P or right ;D

Oh and the Tea Party is an inclusive group that has all liberty minded individuals. (this is in case some one may have been told other wise. Don't always believe the liberal media) Heck my moms an old former hippy that's part of that movement. Bless her heart for seeing the light.

Later all gotta get some sleep. Work sucks, but it pays the bills and buys toys.

[Tombot]

That was a funny discussion, people!

Creationism in science-class... stop making such jokes all the time, i took it serious at first!

[LAW0306]

isnt this a Twilight 2000 forum Lets talk about war and blowing shit up.

[Bullet Magnet]

Even if this thread has gone political, I gotta say (knock on wood) this has been the most civil political discussion I've ever seen.