That’s it in a nutshell. They will never be satisfied. To extrapolate further, they may then turn on each other because someone might be the wrong type of Christian, in the wrong church.
Believe me, they have, and will.
Right now, the evangelical/fundamentalist crowd has no love for the Roman Catholic Church. We’ve all seen Jack Chick tracts, right? That’s the most extreme version of fundie anti-Catholicism, but the sentiment lurks in the heart of most evangelicals, even despite American Catholics’ shameful support of the Republican Party.
Of course, the RCC has done its share of nasty stuff to other Christian sects over the years, but they’ve gotten a lot better about that kind of thing.
luc: * The twins are U Tex girls, whose rigid and unyielding virtue is the stuff of legend…*
I have no knowledge of or opinion about UT women’s virtue in general or that of Jenna Bush in particular, but it’s not relevant in the case of her sister Barbara, who went to Yale.
gobear, you are a far better, and far more tolerant, person than I am. And yet, in this case, I think you’ve missed a lot of Bricker’s antics. He’s more than abrasive - he speaks as a moral authority far too often, and he very frequently makes claims that those of us on the left are “hypocrites” when the essential crime is not agreeing with his views. I’m very willing to discuss things with people who simply wish to discuss them; Bricker however has popped up in innumerable threads to preach the gospel of Strict Constructionism, even when in cases when it’s not germane to the discussion. He builds strawmen to fight, claiming that we liberals all make certain arguments and he’s just heading them off - or something.
The parody was meant to represent what is, essentially, the content of many of his posts, wrapped up in good writing and legalism. (I say legalism because he has been known to argue the law and get that wrong as well: check the thread about a pharmacist taking and refusing to fill someone’s prescription.) If the outside matched the content, that’s what would come out. He leaps to the defense of any conservative on any issue, even ones he admits he doesn’t agree with (as in this very thread), and always jumps in with claims that liberals are all hypocrites - after all, isn’t that what he means with his incessant, snarky posts about how “the Democrats are supposed to be the party of tolerance”?
If you can explain why his contributions to this thread are not just disingenuous Brickerist preaching, I’d love to hear it. But claimed we weren’t “respecting others” because we complained about forcing religious teachings into science class, even after he has acknowledged that those teachings have no place in a public school science class. Defending the right of kids to receive a reasonable education is not disrespectful. It does not make us hypocrites. And I’m really tired of his snarky claims to the contrary.
There is a certain amount of room for speculation as to whether luc’s characterization of U Tex girls’ virtue is actual, or based on the dismal results his own efforts obtained, way back in the when…
Well, not exactly. The Catholic Church says that natural selection is God’s plan.
Would you be good enough to point out whom you are saying is not treating those who believe otherwise respectfully?
Sooo. . .
Jesus vs Jesus Horse
who wins?
Jesus… if he’s prepared.
(And, if bread is in fact the body of Christ, I like to prepare my Jesus by toasting it…)
I think we’re all ignoring the important question – what kind of dinosaur would the Christian messiah ride?
I figure him more on a herbivore – the carnivores, and especially the T-Rex seem a little Satanic. Probably the triceratops – those three horns could symbolize the Trinity.
(Anyone else picture Christ in a Lone Ranger outfit, his triceratops rearing against the sunset?)
I see this whole episode as a hopeful sign.
Fundamentalism is in retreat. Fundamentalists sense that their views on creation cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny. What’s more, they know that their only hope for the next generation is to keep their children ignorant. Yet every night their very living rooms are invaded by satellite television and by the internet, presenting their children with more and more evidence in support of evolution.
They are trying to hold back the ocean, and the dikes have more holes than they have fingers.
In days past evolution was not such a threat. It was easier to keep a lid on it, easier to keep children ignorant. Those days are gone, and these attempts to bring creationism into the classroom are a last dying gasp of the Biblical literalists. Their worldview is slipping away.
I live in a fundamentalist region, and I can see it with my own eyes. Each generation is less apt to buy into fundamentalism. Each generation has more information and produces more skeptics.
Enlightenment is coming. It is a slow train, but it is coming.
The RCC did plenty in the past. They aren’t blameless. We had torture, burning, the rack etc. But we haven’t done any of that in a long long time.
Am I the only one that doesn’t get the “Jesus Horses” joke? Could someone explain it, or something? Maybe I’m the caveman…
People! People! Why all this rancor directed toward Bricker? He has been quite consistent in his behavior, noting that it is not appropriate to call ignorant people “idiots.” The proper terminology is Fools and Ignoramuses (although it appears from the OP in that thread that it is permissible to label their notions “idiotic”).
This might be the stance of some individual Catholics, but it is not the church position. Natural Selection, the theory as advanced by Darwin, takes place using mechanisms that do not require the intervention of God. Darwin’s theory requires only variation, or randomness, and selection - those most fit for their environment tend to survive and produce offspring.
Natural Selection is therefore in conflict with catechism, which requires that God’s blueprint get credit, while evolution itself has been reviewed and found to be ‘not inconsistent’.
How many of you didn’t read carefully enough to notice that it was SNL and not the Georgia State School System that used the reference “Jesus horses”? With the false claim of the title of this thread, I think we have a prime example of why Southerners are not solely responsible for their reputation as chime heads. There are a lot of gullible people who buy into the stereotype without much thought.
Try to keep some facts in mind as you wallow in your superiority.
-
Those red state/ blue state maps are a little misleading. If each state reflected the percentage of the population voting for Bush, they wouldn’t look so red. The same is true for the blue states. We are more alike that you might think.
-
The article that was referenced in the OP talks about the ignorance of a few people and the difficulties they can cause in an educational system. Nowhere does the article imply that these nutcases are typical Georgians. To the contrary, the article emphasizes how such instances get blown out of proportion and perpetuate the myths.
This thread has served to illustrate that point.
Dunny, but I can’t recall an instance of the Party of Tolerance, Diversity and Acceptance demanding that Evolution be included as part of any Sunday School Curricula.
Face it, Bricker, These ninnies stepped on their dicks and got caught out looking like the first-class jackasses that they are. You’re just pissed off at “the party of Tolerance, Diversity and Acceptance” for (rightly) laughing at them.
Thank you Zoe, for your attempts to bring some cool-headedness into the discussrion. I have a follow-up concern, however, with this case as it is unfolding.
I first became aware of the case a couple of days ago, when there was a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times regarding the legal action referred to in the OP. Yesterday, buried in the “News of the Nation” section of the paper, I found a single paragraph, headlined to the effect that some scientists had weighed in on the issue. The story (such as it was) stated that thirty scientists had signed a letter filed as an amicus curiae (or however the devil it’s spelled) brief with the court. Without providing any context, such as names, fields of expertise, or perhaps more importantly, who had invited the filing, the paragraph said that the letter alluded to controversies and disagreements that have recently surrounded the general acceptance of the Darwinian model of Natural Selection. I had hoped that the letter would be alluded to in the story linked to in the OP, but I was disappointed.
While I am disappointed in the Times’s failure to provide some deeper reportage on this wire service item, I’m also a bit alarmed and chagrined at the thought that the political wing of the Biblical Literalist movement might be able to stealthily insert a press release into the wire services, and successfully place a data point onto the Argument From Authority scoreboard.
N.B. I strongly suspect that what I have just described is what was behind the item in yesterday’s Times; I will be extremely grateful to read of any developments that show I am mistaken.
You forgot “Self-piety.”
Waverly, I am unsure what point you think you are making, but you keep throwing in conclusions that are simply not true. There is no place that Church teaching requires that the “blueprint” be visible–and there is no place that Darwin’s theory requires that God be excluded.
Several years ago in Discover, Jared Diamond corrected a Stephen J. Gould claim on this very point. Nothing in the scientific explantion of Evolutionary Theory can legitimately be attributed to God (unless we actually find evidence of God–unlikely in the extreme), However, that is not the same as claiming that God could not have played a part. Gould claimed that the inability to discern God’s fingerprints indicated an atheist universe; Diamond pointed out that it only indicates that we can never find God’s fingerprints. The Church only states that believers cannot hold that the evolution of humanity happened without God’s presence, but allows any and all scientific discussions of the process. Similarly, science can discuss all processes, but has no way to rule out a divine intervention. (Prove that the appropriate sperm or egg, carrying one variation or another was not divinely guided to fertilization at each critical moment in the evolutionary path. Building science on a presumption that God has been involved is counterproductive and foolish. Using science to attempt to deny that it is possible is equally a fool’s errand.)
There is no conflict between RCC teachings and actual biological science on this point. There may be conflict between the RCC and the philosophical musings of some scientists (such as Gould), but that is a different issue.