No clemency for cross! War Memorial Cross must go!

I'm not coming back into this swamp.

There is one thing that edsinger and I agree on completely - one of us is a perfect example of why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. We just don't agree on which of us is the one.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I'm not coming back into this swamp.

hehe With the comment that followed that line, you just did

Originally posted by Al DavisonThere is one thing that edsinger and I agree on completely - one of us is a perfect example of why this country is going to hell in a handbasket. We just don't agree on which of us is the one.

And just when did this nation start on its path of moral decline?

If you can honestly tell me that you believe that the morals of this country have got better since this assualt on God(not just Christianity) began, then I will know the answer to your riddle above.

Originally posted by LadyV
Oh Ed....
:::::::::::::::shakes head:::::::::::::::::

I don't see why it can't stay...but be realistic......not all of Americans are Christians.....how you like the memorial to have a large Pentagram over it, how bout a Star Of David, to represent "all" VETS? [edit on 3/16/2005 by LadyV]

Simple, Lady, this is a Christian nation, not a Satanic nation or any other type of nation.
All this PC crap is going against a couple of centuries of knowledge and sense. It is the effect of revising history, destroying a culture and its values, and replacing it with humanism. The end result will be catastrophic, as most who still know the truth understand. Once every remnant of the Creator, about which the Founding Fathers acknowledged that endowed us with certain unalienable rights, is removed, you will most certainly understand.

Problem is that this is not a christian nation anymore. This happens when you have a number of different races and religions in one country. This is what makes America unique. Time to accept that the country has changed and will continue to change.

Originally posted by I See You
Problem is that this is not a christian nation anymore. This happens when you have a number of different races and religions in one country. This is what makes America unique. Time to accept that the country has changed and will continue to change.

Yeah good thing morality & crime is getting better.

Originally posted by I See You
Problem is that this is not a christian nation anymore. This happens when you have a number of different races and religions in one country. This is what makes America unique. Time to accept that the country has changed and will continue to change.

But what caused it to change? Was it the majority speaking out with one voice decrying the policies of America, or was it some vindictive individuals who decided America should match their values, though the majority doesn't hold them, to make them feel more at home?

Emminent Domain in reverse might be a good idea. All it takes is a sale to a caretaking Church or private foundation of the property on which the cross stands. Since the cross itself is regarded as a "church," then make it so.

It would also be a tribute to private property and an end to politically correct pressure groups doing away with crosses anywhere on currently public land. For that matter are they equally adverse to the crosses at Arlington Cemetary? Excuse me but people fought for religious freedom in these wars, not an impersonal State and Court based religion expelling a personal religion.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Simple, Lady, this is a Christian nation,

And I think we determined in another thread that you think that doesn't mean much these days. Aside from the history of this nation, of course. So really, we can say it used to be a Christian nation.

Some think it means that religion should dictate laws and be linked to the government. No Thanks. According to the Constitution, this is NOT a Christian Nation.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It means that the nation was built on Christianity, our laws were based on that belief, that NAtural Law, which is God's Law, is Constitutional Law, but with that being coated with statutory law and "civil" rights (created by congress, therefore removable by congress), we are so far removed from that nation it means nothing.
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by edsinger

Keep kidding yourself with that one....

Otherwise adaptation would be taught, not evolution.

Evolution = No God (paste your preferred here) or Creator needed.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point. Adaptation? Isn't adaptation just a subcategory of evolution?

I'm serioulsy confused by your short responses. If you want me to understand what you're talking about, you're going to have to expand on your shorthand sentences. If you don't care whether I get your drift or not, then keep with the short sarcastic responses and I'll just ignore your posts.

I've put a lot of time and effort into this. Could you?

Originally posted by junglejake
But what caused it to change? Was it the majority speaking out with one voice decrying the policies of America, or was it some vindictive individuals who decided America should match their values, though the majority doesn't hold them, to make them feel more at home?

Is this the post you're talking about that I missed? I didn't miss it.

You apparently feel that 'Majority rules' is some kind of meaningful standard that spans every aspect of life and law. Well, it doesn't.

If the majority ruled, Al Gore would have been president in 2000.
If the majority ruled, gas prices would be lower.
If the majority ruled, the public school systems would be a lot better.
If the majority ruled, we'd withdraw from Iraq.
If the majority ruled, Carl Rove would be out of the White House.
If the majority ruled, everything would be cheaper.
If the majority ruled, our borders would be safer.
If the majority ruled, a whole lot of things would be different.

Just because 75% of Americans claim to be Christian, that has NO impact on the rest of the nation. They don't get to make the rules. The rules are already made and one of the rules is that religion is not a factor in making the rules.


[edit on 17-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by junglejake
I understand your reasoning and used to subscribe to it.

I didn't miss that one either. There just didn't seem to be a question to answer or anything.

I don't know what you want me to say, Jake. We disagree on many issues. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not interested in changing yours. My beliefs are as strong as yours.

I don't agree with my reps either on most things, but politicians are so corrupt these days that money can buy a vote quicker than anything.

What is your point? That people get offended too easily? I agree, but you and I differ in that I have no desire to control them. If someone is offended, and sues, then oh, well. That's their life. I wouldn't do it, but they would. It's none of my business. I don't have the right to tell someone else what is important to them and what they should act on. That's their choice the same as it's my choice in my life.

As I've said, I don't care that they took the cross down. I think it's petty, but there are petty people in this world. I don't resist that fact. Life goes on.

I watch. I try to express my beliefs. But people have the right to do what they're doing. You can disagree and maybe even make a difference, but I personally don't think trying to control other people is the way to go for me.

The cross coming down bothers you. If you're really interested in doing something about it go ahead. If you really want to change the way things are going, then do something. But I'm not going to join the leagues, because I know how I feel about it and that's not going to change.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

That's valid, BH. My primary goal wasn't to change your mind (although it would have been a nice bonus), but to understand why you believe what you believe and get you to understand why I believe what I do. Too often people are upset with other's apparent opinion when, in fact, they don't know where the other person is coming from. I'm just seeking and trying to express understanding.

We have been discussing so far in this thread general religion being barred from governmental institutions and property. Yet we haven't really delved into something else that is going on, the singling out of Christianity as the only religion not permitted in the public square. The law states that this is not the case, but the law only seems to be enforced if it gets to the Supreme Court. There is a battle going on that I just read an article about along just these lines.

A teacher had many things up on his bullitin board in his classroom. He had a poster publicizing the National Day of Prayer, an article about George Bush's faith, something on the Incan's belief of an afterlife, and articles about the Peruvian Inca sun god festival. Then the teacher got sick and was out of the classroom for two days.

When he got back, anything relating to Christianity was taken off his board. The rest of it was allowed to stay, but not about Christianity. The class is a spanish one, and he said "the material on his walls was used to educate students about the Spanish language, culture and religious traditions in Hispanic countries". Apparently that is fine, as long as Christianity is not recognized as a Mexican/Central American religious tradition. The problem with this line of reasoning is that Mexico and Central America have either one of the highest or the highest population of Catholics in the world.

Here's the article

He is sueing, but who knows how the courts will decide.

Originally posted by junglejake
A teacher had many things up on his bullitin board in his classroom.
He is sueing, but who knows how the courts will decide.

That's the thing. It's so hard to draw the line. That's why we need the higher courts and unfortunately, they're not always fair, either. In my opinion, if they were going to take down religious posters, they should have taken all religious posters down and likely that's what will eventually happen.

After all, there are other aspects of society and Spanish culture that can be used to teach the language. I wonder why this teacher had so many religious postings up? I wonder if this teacher was completely on the up-and-up. It sounds to me like he may have an agenda after all. I'd be curious to see how it comes out.

Oh, he did have an agenda of sorts. He also had a poster up for the Christian Club at the school (didn't catch if that came down, too), and from some of his comments in the article I believe he considers himself a Christian. Yet, to really learn a people's language, you have to learn about their culture, too. I took 3 years of German in high school, and a lot of the class was spent going into German culture to understand some of the words that don't have an english equivelant and to understand idiomatic statements. Granted, the first year this was barely touched on, but by my third year, German culture took up far more of the class than actually learning grammar or words did. (Es kann nur einen geben, baby!)

I would assume Spanish would be taught the same way at the higher levels. To deny Catholocism has a small cultural role in the Central American culture is to deny the atmosphere contains oxygen. Sure, the teacher was and is a Christian...Does that mean he cannot talk about that aspect of the culture or put up displays depicting it, but a professed athiest could?

The question about spanish culture also brought to mind a story I read a while back and was somehow able to find again:

A devout high school student who painted an image that kinda sorta looks like a stairway to heaven had to change it after some folks complained about the religious imagery, reports the Napa Valley Register.

The student, who carried a Bible and has earned the nickname Pastor K., said he didn’t want to offend anyone and immediately changed the image on a painting outside the Napa High School art room.

Stairs previously leading to castle in the sky will now lead to a sunspot in the sky, and the castle will be moored to the ground instead of planted in clouds. "I don't want to cause anyone to get upset," said the student, Kyle Trudelle.

Some observant students wonder, however, why no one has complained about an nearby mural depicting the Virgin Mary. It was explained that that painting is about Hispanic heritage, so it’s okay.

tonguetied.us...

Originally posted by junglejake
Oh, he did have an agenda of sorts. He also had a poster up for the Christian Club at the school (didn't catch if that came down, too), and from some of his comments in the article I believe he considers himself a Christian.

So, what's his agenda? To peddle his religion to his students? If so, then they should crack down on him. It's one thing if the students have a Christian Club together, but the moment a teacher gets involved, while teaching school, the government is paying for it.

Believe it or not, students have the right to go to school and not be proselytized to.

As far as the other stories go, yes, I'm sure these things are happenng. I'm not sure what you want to get across to me by siting cases that you think are unfair.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

I was just reinforcing my point with that other story.

As to him having an agenda, I may have been too rash in saying that. I put myself in his position, and were I there I would attempt to expose the children to Christianity, even through a simple billboard. After all, as a teacher I wouldn't be permitted to bring the subject up, but if a student asks about a religion, it's open season and we could discuss it.

I don't know this man's mind, and he is the only one who does. There is also a difference between peddling something and exposure. He would not be able to bring it up in the classroom, as I said. If he did, he would probably, especially after this incident, be fired. Again, though, the students can bring it up. So far as I understand, he wouldn't be able to say what religion he practices unless asked specifically and would not be able to push the religion, just answer questions posed.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 8-17-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by edsinger

Keep kidding yourself with that one....

Otherwise adaptation would be taught, not evolution.

Evolution = No God (paste your preferred here) or Creator needed.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point. Adaptation? Isn't adaptation just a subcategory of evolution?

I'm serioulsy confused by your short responses. If you want me to understand what you're talking about, you're going to have to expand on your shorthand sentences. If you don't care whether I get your drift or not, then keep with the short sarcastic responses and I'll just ignore your posts.

I've put a lot of time and effort into this. Could you?

Well I will try..... I think that if you take a cave fish. It has no eyes (that work anyway). Now somewhere down the line, that type of fish adapted to that becuase it had no need for eyes.

Same as if a human looses his right hand, he will learn to use the left.

Now I know what your thinking and I can not blame you. Is that not how evolution is supposed to work? Well adaptation makes sense, but that fish at one time had to HAVE an eyeball.

Genetic mutations are 99% DESTRUCTIVE, so it doesnt explain it to me. I look at the universe and its size, you go far out ~20 Billion light years and you can go inward to the picometer. Its designed, its not by chance.

I had a class in college and I know that for the heavier elements to have formed, we needed generations of stars and I just do not think that 20+ Billion years is enough time for it by that line of thinking.

The first life had to have the amino-acids in JUST the right combination is that promordial soup to even form life, otherwise its just junk and no life.


If by evolution the Human soul could not have been formed, then evolution can not be in the sense that it is preached.

Sure, that ol cave fish is blind becuase it no longer needs to see, but at one time the eye in the original fish just couldnt have 'poof' been there. It was created.........

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I will try..... I think that if you take a cave fish. It has no eyes ...
Genetic mutations are 99% DESTRUCTIVE...

it's not designed by chance...

I just do not think that 20+ Billion years is enough time for it by that line of thinking.

If by evolution the Human soul could not have been formed, then evolution can not be in the sense that it is preached.

Most of this sounds like your opinion, Ed. You don't think it's designed by chance. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean there was a God involved, either. We simply don't know. The best we can figure with the evidence we have is evolution.

You don't think 20 billion years is enough? Ok. But should we teach something in public schools nationwide based on Ed's opinion?

We have no inkling if the human soul even needs to evolve or how long it might take if it does. We have NO clue. We don't even know what it is. How can we speculate on how it evolved, if it did?

And evolution is 'taught' not preached. It's no more preached than math is. Preaching is done in church, not schools.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree that Creation (or ID) should not be taught in public schools.

By that you are supporting a religion.

What does that mean? I think creation shouldn't be on the curriculum so that means I support a religion? What religion?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You don't think 20 billion years is enough? Ok. But should we teach something in public schools nationwide based on Ed's opinion?

And evolution is 'taught' not preached. It's no more preached than math is.

Preaching is done in church, not schools.

Look the 20 billion years is actually science, the first stars after the Big Bang are where some of the heavier elements came from, then the next even more heavier elements, and so on....With atomic numbers approaching the 100's the time is not there for 30 generations of stars or whatever.....




These heavier elements are formed as part of the life cycle of stars, I would guess 5-8 billion years or so. Well the amount of elements leaves the universe far to young to have had the amount of generations to effectively explain in my eyes the present line of thinking.


See this page, heck it even puts the universe at around 13 billion years or so

The Age of the Elements

The age of the chemical elements can be estimated using radioactive decay to determine how old a given mixture of atoms is. The most definite ages that can be determined this way are ages since the solidification of rock samples. When a rock solidifies, the chemical elements often get separated into different crystalline grains in the rock. For example, sodium and calcium are both common elements, but their chemical behaviours are quite different, so one usually finds sodium and calcium in different grains in a differentiated rock. Rubidium and strontium are heavier elements that behave chemically much like sodium and calcium. Thus rubidium and strontium are usually found in different grains in a rock. But Rb-87 decays into Sr-87 with a half-life of 47 billion years. And there is another isotope of strontium, Sr-86, which is not produced by any rubidium decay. The isotope Sr-87 is called radiogenic, because it can be produced by radioactive decay, while Sr-86 is non-radiogenic. The Sr-86 is used to determine what fraction of the Sr-87 was produced by radioactive decay. This is done by plotting the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio versus the Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. When a rock is first formed, the different grains have a wide range of Rb-87/Sr-86 ratios, but the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio is the same in all grains because the chemical processes leading to differentiated grains do not separate isotopes. After the rock has been solid for several billion years, a fraction of the Rb-87 will have decayed into Sr-87. Then the Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio will be larger in grains with a large Rb-87/Sr-86 ratio. Do a linear fit of

with x being the number of half-lives that the rock has been solid. See the talk.origins isochrone FAQ for more on radioactive dating.

When applied to rocks on the surface of the Earth, the oldest rocks are about 3.8 billion years old. When applied to meteorites, the oldest are 4.56 billion years old. This very well determined age is the age of the Solar System. See the talk.origins age of the Earth FAQ for more on the age of the solar system.

When applied to a mixed together and evolving system like the gas in the Milky Way, no great precision is possible. One problem is that there is no chemical separation into grains of different crystals, so the absolute values of the isotope ratios have to be used instead of the slopes of a linear fit. This requires that we know precisely how much of each isotope was originally present, so an accurate model for element production is needed. One isotope pair that has been used is rhenium and osmium: in particular Re-187 which decays into Os-187 with a half-life of 40 billion years. It looks like 15% of the original Re-187 has decayed, which leads to an age of 8-11 billion years. But this is just the mean formation age of the stuff in the Solar System, and no rhenium or osmium has been made for the last 4.56 billion years. Thus to use this age to determine the age of the Universe, a model of when the elements were made is needed. If all the elements were made in a burst soon after the Big Bang, then the age of the Universe would be to = 8-11 billion years. But if the elements are made continuously at a constant rate, then the mean age of stuff in the Solar System is



The Age of the Elements

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticI agree that Creation (or ID) should not be taught in public schools.

By that you are supporting a religion.

What does that mean? I think creation shouldn't be on the curriculum so that means I support a religion? What religion?

What I mean by that is whether you will accept it or not, the Darwinists thinking is a religion of its own. It says that no God is necessary for life and as I have explained in my opinion that the adds of the amino acids forming the right chains in the amount of time given by Darwinism is not possible unless you believe 10 ^ 120th power is possible. I don't like those odds at all. so therefore I trend to believe in Creation as the beauty and design of it are obvious to me.


Darwinism is taught as fact when it is not and there are very large holes in that theory. When you accept evolution as fact you no longer need God as science has explained everything for you.


There are no Darwin churchs out there that I know of, but the theory is about anti Creator as you can get...Atheism or Agnostic..........its a religion of its own.

So, basically, you're saying that Creation must be true because you find holes in the theory if evolution? (BTW, evolution is taught as theory, not fact. That's why they call it the theory of evolution.)

There's no real evidence for Creation, you just don't think evolution is true, so ID is the only possible explanation.

And Evolution is only a religion to you, in that it doesn't require a god. It's not really a religion. There is no diety, no worshipping, no prayer to the evolution godess. You say it's a religion because there is no god, but if there is no god, there is no religion. Atheism and Agnosticism are also not religions, they are beliefs. No god, no worship, no service.

Like I said before, if a new theory came along, with evidence, they'd drop evolution because there is no emotional connection to the idea, it's just a scientific explanation. You don't drop religion when something new comes along, do you?

What's wrong with teaching your kids creation if you want them to learn that?