# Something to consider. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2000, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544 "2000-07-31T14:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/101 "2000-08-06T03:51:28Z")
Why do all these Christians want to elect Bill Clinton as primate of the Church? I don’t get it. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/102 "2000-08-06T05:16:17Z")
Doctor J, on George Bush: Could you cite that? I’d like to show that quote to some of my friends, but they want proof. Thanks in advance. FriendofGod: On your school shooting comment: You do realize that juvenile crime, including school-related homicides, have gone down in the past decade? It’s just the high-publicity generated by the media that puts everyone’s attention on it now. I could cite but I just remember a newspaper article from a while back…I’ll give you a link if you want the exact source. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/103 "2000-08-06T06:19:31Z")
Jello requested: > [@](#): > > Doctor J, on George Bush: Could you cite that? I’d like to show that quote to some of my friends, but they want proof. Thanks in advance. Just thought I’d jump in and be helpful: [here it is.](http://www.skeptictank.org/gbush.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Shylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Shylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shylock)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/104 "2000-08-06T06:48:04Z")
Referring to link provided by kaylasdad… I am not necessarily doubting that it did, but were those conversations (i.e., “Believe in God. Get off our backs”) taped or witnessed? The letters stand for themselves, I suppose. I ask, because before I get too riled up I’d like to be sure that these quotes haven’t been taken out of context or made up. But if they are true…damn that is frightening. You’ve got an entire section of society deemed unpatriotic and not worthy of citizenship because of their religious stance? And the founders of that particular organization served for our country in war? I find that stance incredibly repulsive…dare I say, truly unpatriotic itself? I guess this situation is old news…but has anyone asked GWB the younger what he thinks on Atheists as citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Shylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Shylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shylock)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/105 "2000-08-06T07:00:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shylock \* > \*\* > I guess this situation is old news…but has anyone asked GWB the younger what he thinks on Atheists as citizens? > > \*\* Well I guess I’ll answer my own question even before I do some actual looking. I’d be _shocked_ if the American Atheists haven’t asked GWB the younger that same exact question yet. That is, of course, unless they were all exiled during Bush Sr.'s terms of office. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/106 "2000-08-06T07:14:27Z")
Shylock: The article I linked is one of many reports of the incident that I found by searching Yahoo! for the words, “George,” “Bush,” and “atheist.” Some of the links that came up only carry the story as far as to mention that American Atheists were still upset about it in 1989. The article, with commentary, by Madeleine Ohair goes into more depth about the further exchanges between American Atheists and the Bush administration. I confess that I didn’t read the entire article before posting the link, and while I have no compelling reason to assume that Mrs. Ohair had embellished anything, I am aware that she did bring her own, uhhh, _baggage_ to the issue. The point is that the quotes attributed to then-Vice President Bush are reliable, and well-documented enough to stand up to your friends’ scrutiny. Enlighten your friends about the rest of the story on your own responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2000, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/107 "2000-08-06T23:53:59Z")
FriendofGod wrote: > [@](#): > > 40 years ago there was a healthy stigma on premarital sex. Today there is _no_ stigma at all, and look at the lovely teen pregnancy and abortion rates, not to mention divorce. Something I noticed between the last time I replied to this paragraph and now: I just watched the movie _Cavalcade_. Near the end, the movie laments the deterioration of good old-fashioned moral values. Newspaper headlines blast across the screen, saying things like “Divorce! Divorce! Divorce!” and “The Age of Unfaith!” and “Vice Orgies Increasing!” and “Sex Murder Dramas.” This movie was released in _ **1933** _. ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/108 "2000-08-07T10:33:12Z")
Kaylasdad99 wrote: > [@](#): > > Just thought I’d jump in and be helpful: here it is. Thanks. After posting my latest, I searched for it on Metacrawler. And found George Dubya saying: > [@](#): > > Random, violent juvenile crime is exploding. Criminologists warn of a new generation of “super predators” – kids who are fatherless, Godless, fearless, and jobless. Horrors…Super Predators! Whatever will we do? His speech can be found at [link][http://www.governor.state.tx.us/Speeches/Kerrvill.html](http://www.governor.state.tx.us/Speeches/Kerrvill.html) [/link] That’s from 1996, by the way. Kaylasdad99 said: > [@](#): > > Enlighten your friends about the rest of the story on your own responsibility. Oh, I’ll be sure to. Thanks again for the link. [/thread hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2000, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/109 "2000-08-07T10:56:01Z")
Fundamentalists are always so pessimistic about the future and so optimistic about the past… I swear that I saw a great quote from someone talking about how the new generation was immoral and horrible and how we were entering a horrible place in our society. The great thing about this quote is that it was from the 1500’s or something like that! I looked everywhere - Can anyone help me? * * * Yer pal, Satan [sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING: Three months, four weeks, one day, 8 hours, 52 minutes and 22 seconds. 4814 cigarettes not smoked, saving $601.85. Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 17 hours, 10 minutes.[/sub] **_"Satan is not an unattractive person."_-Drain Bead** [sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!\*[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/110 "2000-08-08T00:34:33Z")
Okay, it’s _major_ catchup time for me, here we go … Shylock said (a couple days ago): > [@](#): > > over the past 40 or 50 years (just to follow your time-limit) the majority of the members of Congress would be self-defined as Christians. And later … > [@](#): > > But the way I see it is that we are a country where the majority of the government has a “Christian” belief or background I honestly and truthfully don’t know one way or the other if people in Congress in the past 40-50 years have been Christian or not. I’ll be honest with you … I was not thinking _as_ much about Congress as much as I was thinking about _local_ officials … particularly school boards. There was a _highly_ successful push in the past few decades to change the way schools teach certain subjects – ie, remove the moral stigma from sexual sin in sex ed, remove the concept of absolute truth, downplay the religious aspects of American history, make people think evolution is a fact and not a theory, introduce new age religious concepts, make it appear that homosexuality is something your born with, teach that abortion is a morally acceptable choice, etc. tracer said: > [@](#): > > I don’t know if I’d call a stigma against premarital sex “healthy,” particularly in light of what we know about mental and emotional health. All I mean is this … in recent decades you could easily be looked down on for being _Godly_ in a sexual way … ie being a virgin until married. It’s literally backwards! It is _healthy_ for a society to look down on any form of sin … it is _ONE_ of the deterrents to committing that sin! Sure people will still sin anyway but _SOME_ will be swayed by the social pressure to do the right thing. Right now there is social pressure to do the _wrong_ thing. You said: > [@](#): > > The lovely teen pregnancy and abortion rates have more to do with the stigma against contraception than they do with the (former) stigma against premarital sex. Maybe partly true but it misses the overall point. Even if sex outside of marriage _doesn’t_ result in pregnancy and/or abortion, the sexual sin itself is damaging to both parties involved and to society as a whole. > [@](#): > > And part of the reason the abortion rate appeared lower 40 years ago was that abortion at the time was for the most part illegal, so most abortions went unreported. Probably partly true too, but I’ve seen this point blown up to ridiculous proportions. If something’s illegal, less people do it. Sure, _some_ still do it and will go to any lengths, but just think about it – today it’s _easy_ to get an abortion. Just hop over to the nearest clinic and get it done. Decades ago many didn’t even know it was available illegally, and those who did wouldn’t all be willing to risk going that route. _Some_ would, sure, but not in massive numbers. > [@](#): > > 40 years ago, there was no such thing as a “no fault divorce.” You had to prove “grounds” for divorce to the judge, such as adultery or cruelty or insanity. EXACTLY MY POINT! Today, divorce is tragically easy by comparison. > [@](#): > > How many unhappy couples back then were forced to spend their lives locked into a repugnant marriage from which they had no escape? It’s all a matter of perspective. You can take the perspective you state - “I’m in prison and I can’t get out” - or you can take the perspective “I don’t have a _choice_ so I darn well _better_ make this marriage work”! > [@](#): > > The “spiralling” divorce rate in modern years merely represents what the divorce rate would have been 40 years ago had no-fault divorces been legal. PROBABLY TRUE! That’s why no-fault divorces are _so_ _harmful_! Lemur866 said: > [@](#): > > It would be wrong to say that a politician can only pray or invoke god where no one else can see them. THANK YOU. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. > [@](#): > > If Christians want to have nativity scenes in public places they can certainly do so. The churches can fund such things. But it is _not_ right for the government to take tax money from me by force and use that money to celebrate christianity Actually you make a good point, although I can see a point being made the other way too. You could say “If the people _want_ the gov’t to spend money on that, they should be allowed to do it” … but then again I see your point about gov’t money being spent. Interesting point. I _definately_ agree that Christians should be able to put such things up in public places though. > [@](#): > > It is also wrong for teachers to lead prayers in public schools. I have absolutely no problem with students gathering before school to pray together, even on school grounds, and the courts have agreed. Although _I_ lean toward believing prayer in school _can_ be done in a right way, you’d be surprised at how many strong conservative Christians take pretty much the stand you do. And actually I’m starting to shift somewhat in that direction as well, because it seems that _practically_ it’s the only way prayer is going to get back in schools. Here’s an interesting question for you (or anyone): would you have a problem with one of those Bible clubs or prayer groups being _led_ by a member of the faculty? Finally you said: > [@](#): > > What would you change if there was no SOCAS? Sure, you wouldn’t establish a national church, or require religious tests for public figures, or prohibit the free exercise of religion, but what _would_ you do? To me the things you described _are_ SOCAS (by the way, thanks Telemark for clueing me in on what this was!). But as for what _I’d_ like to see happen … I’d like to see the nation’s schools and laws based on Judeo-Christian principles rather than humanistic principles. Now some would be horrified at this statement and say “Don’t shove your beliefs down our throat” and “You can’t legislate morality”. But once again I say … _all_ laws are based on someone’s idea of morality. _All_ laws in a sense impose themselves on society … we have to obey them whether we like them or not. The question is, what foundation do we base those laws on? Right now, it’s partly based on humanism. I truly believe athiests, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike would benefit _GREATLY_ from a society based in Judeo-Christian values. Without going into a _huge_ litany of issues, some of the things this might entail would be … - Requiring debt-free government (except extreme cases, a la war) - The government not being wasteful with money - Teaching _accurate_ US history in school (including the religious roots of the country) - Teaching _the truth_ about sex in sex ed classes (ie, the consequences of premarital sex) - Not giving any kind of governmental endorsement of sinful lifestyles, ie - nonmarried couples living together, gay couples, etc. (Again – not prohibiting the people from doing what they want, just not endorsing their lifestyle) - Encouraging and promoting Godly values from the voices and lives of government leaders and officials There are many many more but that’s a tidbit. Great question. Jello said: > [@](#): > > The existence of your friend God is also a theory, you know. And there is no “truth” of how the Earth began. Any teaching of how that happened is a theory, since no one really knows how it happened. The Big Bang is a theory, your God creating it is a theory. We don’t exactly have primary sources to listen to or learn from in this case. So then, would you have no problem with Creationism being taught as _another_ _possible_ _theory_ alongside evolution? > [@](#): > > Having condoms given out in school is helpful to the prevention of those abortions and teen pregnancies. But again, it misses the heart of the point. I heard a teenage girl say something once that cut right to the heart of this issue. Her quote (regarding having premarital sex): > [@](#): > > You’re breaking God’s heart, and, you know, a condom’s not going to stop that. EXACTLY! It’s not _just_ the pregnancy and abortion. It’s not _even_ just the premarital sex. It’s that the kids are cutting themselves off from a relationship with God. Jello said: > [@](#): > > I think Doctor J said earlier that some people’s viewpoints are that if the laws aren’t promoting Christianity, they must be against it. That is simply not so. No this is not my viewpoint. There _is_ a specific religion called humanism and there is a manifesto of their beliefs. If you read it, you will see what our society has become. I have a hardcopy but not an electronic copy. If anyone knows of a website we could link to it. GLWasteful said: > [@](#): > > So, how many of the kids involved in school shootings have espoused this particular belief? Because I’ve not seen or heard such a thing. Or are they just keeping it to themselves? Rather than a lengthy answer I will suggest reading the book “She Said Yes”. Whatever your opinion about Cassie Bernall’s final moments, her story will expose the world of teens today that will send shivers down your spine. You said: > [@](#): > > So, you are maintaining that due to no-fault divorce laws (which are how old? 30 years? 40? 50? I honestly don’t know) and Roe v Wade, that people are being told that it’s just groovy to kill someone because they want to? That because they feel justified in taking a life, then it’s okay? So, when did all laws against murder get repealed? It’s not _just_ the laws … but actually, _yes_, the ones you cited are a small part of the overall picture. What I’m saying is this … society has decided they want the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want. To do that, you have to remove absolutes and a sense of right and wrong. You have to remove the concept that premarital sex is wrong, or that abortion is wrong, or that pornography is wrong, etc etc etc. Everything is okay now! But that’s just the problem. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The generation being _RAISED_ this way is _so_ aimless because the generation before them threw standards out the door. So now there are _no_ standards. With no standards, mankind moves closer and closer to more and more evil things. Again, read “She Said Yes”. I mean, today, teens talk casually about killing their parents, they play around with the occult because they want to, they go to sex parties and have sex just for the heck of it, etc. And it’s totally unsurprising! Why shouldn’t they? There are no standards! There’s no right and wrong. tracer, later you talked about the movie you saw and concluded: > [@](#): > > This movie was released in 1933. Well, I never said America was perfectly moral from the 1950s back into history forever. I believe the 1920s were a very decedant time too. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/111 "2000-08-08T01:46:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FriendofGod \* > \*\*Granted, in my original quote, I could have more accurately said this: > > “Today, the standard of Humanism has pretty much won as the law of the land. The standard of Humanism has won in the everyday lives of people and in the culture as a whole.” \*\* Actually, Christianity has won as the law of the land. Can you imagine an atheist running for the White House? Right now we have two born-agains running in the race- George W. “Jesus day” Bush and Al “you won’t repeal any sodomy laws on _my_ watch” Gore. As for “humanism” leading to shootings, the fact is that there is a strong correlation between Christianity and the murder rate, state-by-state. At the top you have Louisiana, with the highest murder rate and the highest rate of churchgoing. Frankly, it’s a little silly for you to say that “humanism” is destroying the country. 90+% of Americans are Christians. If there’s something wrong with America, in this land where majority rules… -Ben ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/112 "2000-08-08T01:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Even if sex outside of marriage _doesn’t_ result in pregnancy and/or abortion, the sexual sin itself is damaging to both parties involved and to society as a whole. Pardon my French, but bull-fucking-shit. And I want cites, from well-established sociological journals, and not the Bible or personal anecdotes, or I want this statement withdrawn. This is rampant opinion with no facts behind it, and that just doesn’t wash at the SD. > [@](#): > > EXACTLY MY POINT! Today, divorce is tragically easy by comparison. Guess where most of the divorcing is taking place? (Hint: It rhymes with “Shmible Belt.”) > [@](#): > > PROBABLY TRUE! That’s why no-fault divorces are _so_ _harmful_! Utter garbage. Some marriages are not worth saving, and indeed shouldn’t take place in the first place. > [@](#): > > So then, would you have no problem with Creationism being taught as _another_ _possible_ _theory_ alongside evolution? Is it subject to examination using the tools of scientific investigation? (I already know the answer is “no,” so yes, I’d have a big problem with it. Would you like Darwinian natural selection taught in Bible class, as another possible theory?) ---
**Author:** ![Jello](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@Jello](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jello)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/113 "2000-08-08T02:02:39Z")
pldennison quoted, then said: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So then, would you have no problem with Creationism being taught as _another_ _possible_ _theory_ alongside evolution? > > Is it subject to examination using the tools of scientific investigation? (I already know the answer is “no,” so yes, I’d have a big problem with it. Would you like Darwinian natural selection taught in Bible class, as another possible theory?) Beat me to it. FriendofGod, what I was saying is that if you dismiss Darwinism as a mere theory that is not proven, and therefore should not be believed in, by that logic you ought to dismiss God as well. It’d be hypocritical otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/114 "2000-08-08T02:19:07Z")
Ben said: > [@](#): > > Actually, Christianity has won as the law of the land. Can you imagine an atheist running for the White House? And later: > [@](#): > > 90+% of Americans are Christians. Regarding both of these quotes, I think you are thinking about the fact that 90+% of Americans _believe in God_, which is very different from saying 90+% of Americans are Christians. Remember the famous and accurate quote: > [@](#): > > You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder. (James 2:19) If I recall correctly, the last Gallup Poll seemed to indicate that somewhere between 30 - 35 % of Americans would consider themselves “born-again Christians”. And then you have to take into account the fact that calling yourself a Christian doesn’t mean you are one! Christians are hardly a majority, _but_ a majority _do_ believe in God, I’ll grant you that. pldennison had rather, ah, _strong_ feelings on my quote regarding premarital sex. He said: > [@](#): > > And I want cites, from well-established sociological journals, and not the Bible or personal anecdotes, or I want this statement withdrawn. Well don’t hold your breath pl. I won’t lie to placate your feelings. And no you won’t get the cites you want either because I don’t have any other than the ones you don’t want to accept. God’s Word is enough for me, but if that _weren’t_ enough I have eyes and I can see what sexual sin has wrought in the lives of very empty people over the years. It’s candy-coated cyanide like I said earlier. Fun at first, then the poison starts to do it’s work. Regarding divorce you said: > [@](#): > > Guess where most of the divorcing is taking place? I know! It’s a tragedy in a huge way. The church’s divorce rate is just as high as the world’s … sometimes even higher in some parts of the country. So … should we throw standards out just because some Christians are falling prey to the lies of the age like everyone else? Regarding marriages you said: > [@](#): > > Utter garbage. Some marriages are not worth saving, and indeed shouldn’t take place in the first place. I agree with the last sentence for sure. Many mistakes have been made through the ages in this way. But the first part of the sentence is true only in very limited cases IMHO. Unless you’ve got adultery or serious issues (like drugs / beating, etc that isn’t being repented of) … well lets just say that I’ve seen God work _MIRACLES_ and cause couples to fall back in love that were about to scatch each others eyes out at one time. God can restore marriages if the participants are willing … and _sometimes_ I’ve seen Him restore marriages where only _one_ participant was willing! The changes that the one partner made affected the other so much that it eventually rubbed off. Regarding Creationism you said: > [@](#): > > Is it subject to examination using the tools of scientific investigation? You assumed ‘no’ and I’m not sure why. I say _of course_! ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/115 "2000-08-08T02:25:58Z")
Jello your post slipped in while I was typing this last response. You said: > [@](#): > > FriendofGod, what I was saying is that if you dismiss Darwinism as a mere theory that is not proven, and therefore should not be believed in, by that logic you ought to dismiss God as well. It’d be hypocritical otherwise. Well to be _honest_ I don’t consider God to be a theory at all … I consider Him to be fact. But I’m aware that much of society at large doesn’t see it that way. I’m not saying Darwinism “shouldn’t be believed in”. _I_ don’t believe in it, but if someone wants to, knock yourself out. All I’m saying is … don’t call it a _fact_. Call it a theory. It’s one possibility. I’m not saying to tell people “don’t believe this” - I’m just saying call it what it is - a theory. And as I said in my last response, I believe Creationism should be taught as a valid theory as well. Let people make up their minds which one they think is correct! What’s so scary about letting them hear both sides of the debate? And while I’m not an expert, to expand on my last comment, there _is_ an entire field of study known as “creation science” which focuses on scientific evidence for the creation viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/116 "2000-08-08T05:40:34Z")
From FriendOfGod: > [@](#): > > And as I said in my last response, I believe Creationism should be taught as a valid theory as well. Let people make up their minds which one they think is correct! What’s so scary about letting them hear both sides of **the debate?** (bolding mine) Regarding “the debate,” as you so charmingly put it: I believe it was our own Unca Cecil who once wrote: “Around here, we don’t take votes on the facts.” I may be extrapolating without justification here (and if I am, I have no doubt that it will be pointed out), but I am of the opinion that the above encompasses the position that there is **no legitimate “debate”** within the scientific community as to _evolution as facti_ vs. _Genesis as literal, historical account of the origins of the cosmos, and more locally, the origins of life as it currently exists on this planet_. FriendOfGod also favored us with the following two gems: > [@](#): > > And while I’m not an expert, and > [@](#): > > to expand on my last comment, there _is_ an entire field of study known as “creation science” which focuses on scientific evidence for the creation viewpoint. Friend, please spare us the redundancies. Telling us you are no expert [in matters of science] was sufficient; you have quite adequately demonstrated this in the past. To make the second of the quoted statements is to do nothing more than reinforce the first. Actually, allow me to back away from that. It does considerably **more** than reinforce the truth of the statement that you are no expert. It announces that you are not only unschooled in science, you are ignorant of what science is, you are uninterested in reducing your ignorance of what science is, you are hostile to the notion that mankind can KNOW (cf. the Latin root for the word science), except through divine revelation, anything about the world we live in. You are the reason this website exists (Fighting Ignorance). You are the reason it’s taking longer than we thought. You are the reason so many are tempted to give up hoping that the fight against ignorance can ever be won. Please stay here. Never cease trying to convert everyone here to your own brand of ignorance (although, realistically, I have to weep, knowing that it is not your own; you have far too much company). The people who frequent this place are largely immune to being infected by it. Please do not go into the outside world and carry your contagion with you, as I have little reason to suspect that you will not find plenty of vulnerable infection sites. Friend, I realize your intentions are not deliberately evil (nobody could possibly be that and remain as irony-free as you have been). But you seem to believe that individual human beings can find their salvation by pouring themselves into a mold of some sort. IT’S NOT SO! Each person has not only the right, not only the responsibility, but the ONLY ability to establish his or her own unique relationship to the Divine. No more than **I** can fire the neural synapses that result in **you** typing a reply into this message board can **I** decide for **you** what will be your standards for acceptable behavior. **You** cannot operate **my** alimentary system; the pizza I just finished eating can be digested only by me; in the same way, my relationship with God will be the result of the choices I make, and the actions I take. It [the task of forging your relationship with the Divine] cannot be bartered away and never can be sold. NOTHING can take it from you. It’s yours and yours alone to have and to hold. And something more, it never is lost to fire and theft; it’s always around. It’s burglar-proof, same as the “treasure Man lays up in Heaven, worth a price no one can measure.” (gratitude and apologies to Jon Hendricks) Do you get the point? Not only each generation, but each _individual_ has to re-invent the wheel, when it comes to your precious “standards.” (Yes, it’s a pain in the ass that way. But, yes that’s the way it is.) In choosing our “standards,” the laws of Man, the tenets of religion, the sayings, teachings, lives and examples of Masters and Mistresses of Wisdom and Spirituality down through the ages (and yes, I respectfully include Jesus, sometimes called The Christ, among them), are nothing more than hints, signposts, traffic cops. (gratitude and apologies to Tom Robbins) The map is not the terrain. The itinerary is not the journey. The blueprint is not the structure. The book is not the experience. The Bible is not the life. Our purpose for being is to make and have a life. Get a life. Oh, and may you be blessed with a happy one, surrounded by people of love and good will. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/117 "2000-08-08T13:18:14Z")
FoG, I apologize for speaking so nastily to you in my post last night. I have several dozen reasons why you are absolutely wrong, but they will mean nothing to you, because you can only speak from the starting point that everything in the Bible is absolutely, literally true, and that no other context besides Christianity can possibly result in a succesful society. So nevermind. Suffice to say that you have a lot of growing up to do. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/118 "2000-08-08T14:03:16Z")
\*\*FriendofGod \*\*: > [@](#): > > There was a _highly_ successful push in the past few decades to change the way schools teach certain subjects – ie, remove the moral stigma from sexual sin in sex ed, What moral stigma? Are you really so naive as to believe that pre-marital sex was unheard of before this “push…to change the way schools teach…”? > [@](#): > > remove the concept of absolute truth, Obviously, I went to the wrong school. And damnit! I went to **public** school. > [@](#): > > downplay the religious aspects of American history, See above. > [@](#): > > make people think evolution is a fact and not a theory, I will tell you this one time to hie yourself off to the archive and read up on what science deems a theory, as opposed to what you do. > [@](#): > > introduce new age religious concepts, Cite, please. Just one good cite that doesn’t come from a Christian website and that it is verifiable. > [@](#): > > make it appear that homosexuality is something your born with, Oh, fuck me! Are you going to be on about this, now? Again, read the archives. > [@](#): > > teach that abortion is a morally acceptable choice, Once more, a cite. Damn, Sam, you can’t just throw crap out here and not expect to be challenged on it. > [@](#): > > Even if sex outside of marriage _doesn’t_ result in pregnancy and/or abortion, the sexual sin itself is damaging to both parties involved and to society as a whole. And while I relaize that **pldennison** has already disagreed with this, I feel that requests for cites simply can’t be repeated too many times when it comes to the utter nonsense that you have spewed thus far. > [@](#): > > . . .but just think about it – today it’s _easy_ to get an abortion. Just hop over to the nearest clinic and get it done. Decades ago many didn’t even know it was available illegally, and those who did wouldn’t all be willing to risk going that route. _Some_ would, sure, but not in massive numbers. Yeah, yeah, I know, but I feel that it’s necessary to quote what has been put down. **FriendofGod** , when was the last time you went to have an abortion? Or, if you are male, when was the last time that you took someone to have an abortion? Because it’s not something that you shoehorn in between gassing up, dropping off the dry cleaning, and picking up milk and eggs. And if you aren’t aware of this, then please stop commenting on it as if you are. This, too, has been gone over exhaustively in the archives. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see the nation’s schools and laws based on Judeo-Christian principles rather than humanistic principles. Now some would be horrified at this statement and say “Don’t shove your beliefs down our throat” and “You can’t legislate morality”. But once again I say … _all_ laws are based on someone’s idea of morality. _All_ laws in a sense impose themselves on society … we have to obey them whether we like them or not. The question is, what foundation do we base those laws on? Right now, it’s partly based on humanism. Or, to put it another way, (and please stop with the “humanism this, and humanism that” nonsense. If you can prove to anyone here that the US has been infiltrated and all but taken over by those blasted humanists, then by all means do so) you want to remake the nation into something that you find more acceptable, right? Well, it’s not gonna happen. At least, not until you’ve managed to convert everyone in the US over to what you consider to be the correct brand of Christianity © (Get’s teeth whitest!). Which is also not going to happen. > [@](#): > > I truly believe athiests, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike would benefit _GREATLY_ from a society based in Judeo-Christian values. Well! Why didn’t you say so? After all, if **you** truly believe it, it **must** be **true**. Did it ever occur to you that there are an awful lot of people out there who do not want to have anything to do what you refer to as Judeo-Christian values? What would you do about them? > [@](#): > > Rather than a lengthy answer I will suggest reading the book “She Said Yes”. Whatever your opinion about Cassie Bernall’s final moments, her story will expose the world of teens today that will send shivers down your spine. And y’know what? Just because I know that you don’t expect it, I’m going to read the damned thing. And if my feelings about society change, and I suddenly think that it’s going down the crapper due to those pubescents, I’m going to come onto this board and shout it from the rooftops, mkay? > [@](#): > > What I’m saying is this … society has decided they want the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want. To do that, you have to remove absolutes and a sense of right and wrong. You have to remove the concept that premarital sex is wrong, or that abortion is wrong, or that pornography is wrong, etc etc etc. Everything is okay now! And once again, I’m going to ask you for a cite. Specifically, a cite that says that nothing is wrong, and that everything is okay. I’ll be waiting right here. > [@](#): > > The generation being _RAISED_ this way is _so_ aimless because the generation before them threw standards out the door. So now there are _no_ standards. With no standards, mankind moves closer and closer to more and more evil things. As **tracer** already pointed out, this particular boogeyman has been used for a very long time. I also recal Shrub mentioning “super-predators”. Might the youth you speak of be the same? Waste Flick Lives! ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/119 "2000-08-08T14:04:20Z")
[minor hijack] Bravo, **pldennison**! You have gained my utter respect not only for your arguments in this thread, but also for your gentlemanly apology! While I agree with very little said by **FriendofGod** , I must say that he (she?) is an extremely polite person. No “fire and brimstone, you’re all going to hell” speeches. FoG, you’re a credit to your beliefs. Were all Christians as nice as you, I might have kept going to church longer (Probably not, but maybe). [/minor hijack] grem ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544/120 "2000-08-08T14:44:27Z")
**GL Wasteful** , I’m actually going to come to FoG’s defense on one very minor issue, the “humanism in education” issue. It’s my understanding that the biggest influence on modern American public education comes from the work of John Dewey, who was quintessentially humanist. (Much information can be found on Dewey at the [Center for Dewey Studies](http://www.siu.edu/~deweyctr/). That said, here are some of the terrible, horrible tenets of humanism, from their website at [http://www.humanism.org](http://www.humanism.org): "Humanists’ action does not draw inspiration from fanciful theories regarding God, Nature, Society or History. It starts from the needs of life which consist in making pain draw away and pleasure draw near. But, to its necessities, human life adds its foresight of the future on the basis of past experience and on the intention of improving the present situation. Human experience is not simply a product of natural and physiological selections and accumulations - as it happens with all species - but is rather social experience and personal experience launched towards overcoming present pain and to prevent it in the future. Human work, accumulated in social productions, passes down and is transformed from generation to generation in a continuous struggle to improve the natural conditions - even those of one’s own body. Thus, the human being should be defined as a historic being and with a mode of social action capable of transforming the world and his own nature. And each time an individual or a human group impose themselves on others in a violent way, they succeed in stopping history, turning their victims into ‘natural’ objects. Nature has no intentions, so when others’ freedom and intentions are denied, they are turned into natural objects, objects to be used. The progress of humanity, in a slow ascent, needs to transform nature and society, eliminating the violent animal appropriation that some human beings do onto others. When this happens, there will be a passage from prehistory to a full human history. In the meanwhile, we cannot start from any central value other than that of a human being complete in his realisations and in his freedom. Thus humanists proclaim: “Nothing above the human being and no human being below another.” If God, the State, Money or any other entity are placed as the central value, the human being is subordinated, thus creating conditions for his ulterior control or sacrifice. Humanists have this point clear. Humanists are atheists or believers, but they do not start from their atheism or their faith in order to lay the foundation of their vision of the world and their action; they start from the human being and his immediate needs. And, in their striving for a better world, if they believe they discover an intention that moves History in a progressive direction, they put that faith or that discovery at the service of the human being. Humanists state the fundamental problem, ie. to know if one wants to live and to decide in which conditions to do it. All the forms of physical, economic, racial, religious, sexual and ideological violence, due to which human progress has been hindered, are repugnant to humanists. For humanists, every form of discrimination, whether manifest or concealed, is a motive for denunciation. Humanists are not violent, but, above all, neither are they cowardly nor afraid of facing violence since their action is meaningful. Humanists connect their personal life with social life. They do not propose false antinomies (contradictions in law), and their coherence lies in this fact. There the dividing line between Humanism and Antihumanism is traced: Humanism puts in the first place the issue of labour before the big capital; the issue of real democracy before the formal democracy; the issue of decentralisation before centralisation; the issue of antidiscrimination before discrimination; the issue of freedom before oppression; the issue of the meaning in life before resignation, complicity and absurdity. Humanism has the only valid ethics in the present moment since it is based on freedom of choice. Similarly, since it believes in intention and freedom, it distinguishes between error and bad faith, between the mistaken one and the traitor." Oooooh–scary!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/something-to-consider/27544.md?page=7)