You hang in there, Bridget. Change will come to Texas, and when it does, the ground will move.
The ground moves in CA all the time. In fact, we had a nice little shaker just a few weeks ago. What’s the big deal about that? 
But not because of the Establishment Clause. That’s just old scribbles. People have the rights they do because they are born with them, not because some magistrate or congress has bestowed rights upon them.
I’m neither upset nor bent. Your problem is that you pick which peers you consider to be qualified and discard the rest. As irony would have it, the ones you choose always agree with you. You have never cited an opposing view. Not ever. Never. Period. I mean, except for the purpose of ridiculing or categorically denying it.
Not really (although I agree with that last clause). People have “rights” because they have agreed they want to have those rights. There is no objective way to determine what is a “right” and what is not. No one is born with any “rights” unless society agrees they are.
I cite scholars who are actually credentialed, who are published in peer reviewed journals and who are respected within the field. Most of the scholars I cite are Christians. Having said that, I tend to form my opinions based on the evidence, not on the word of authorities and my views are about as mainstream as it gets in NT scholarship. I also try to show my work in discussions of Biblical Criticism. I don’t just present the scholarly consensus, I explain why it’s the consensus.
I was expressing my view as a classical liberal (libertarian), since that was the subject of his proclamation.
Perhaps I don’t. If you re-read my post, you will see that what I said was:
As I already said once, I was guessing based on what I know of his views. If my guess was wrong, it’s wrong.
I also just renewed my subscription to The Texas Observer. “Sharp reporting and commentary from the strangest state in the union!”
The Observer was founded in 1954. Fighting ignorance even longer than the SDMB! (Molly Ivins was one of the editors.)
But your explanations are themselves tainted with your bias. I mean a Creationist can explain why the Grand Canyon formed during the deluge, but that lends no credence to his prejudice. Dio, there are dissenting opinions in every discipline, including New Testament scholarship, which you refuse even to acknowledge. And “mainstream” means nothing. Keynes is still mainstream — okay, maybe not so much anymore — in economics, but his theories have been revised in the hopes that they might start working. I have cited archeologists before who write for peer reviewed journals, who are scholars, but whom you have dismissed summarily with jabs at their credentials that mean nothing. You say you cite Christians, but you have complained about my sources before precisely because they were Christian. So again, and as I’ve said many times, if you want some credibility, you’re going to have to stop acting like you can say no wrong. Until then, one has to take what you say with a grain of salt.
Actually, the kind of things I talk about really don’t have significant dissenting opinions, just like there is isn’t any scientific dissent about evolution. If you want to cie an example of a serious, scholarly opinion that you think I’ve given short shrift to I’d be willing to examine it.
Gah. See? That’s simply not correct. I mean, unless you’re taking it all the way up to the highest meta-level. No serious scientist denies that evolution takes place, but there is plenty of controversy and research about the particulars, including everything from abiogenesis to theories that augment natural selection.
It’ll come, I’m sure. Be patient.
I do like you, Dio. Always have. Still will despite this. But I’d like it to get back to the times when I held you in high esteem as a debater per se.
Don’t forget Social Darwinism – a meme that appears still to play a role in our political and social life though it is rarely named.
To points:
(1) With respect to Dio’s claim that someone who believes that all non-believers will go to hell is inherently anti-semitic, you can certianly define anti-semitism in a way that makes that true, but it’s kind of like defining rape in a way that includes sex between two drunk adults… it cheapens the term.
Jew #1: “Man, I’ve had some bad experiences with anti-semitism… I’ve had swastikas spray painted on my house, people have called me kike, people have refused to let me into their homes and their social organizations…”
Jew #2: “Yeah, me too. See, my next door neighbor, he’s super nice and friendly and we drink beer and watch sports together and he coaches my son’s little league team… sure he made a few hints that he’d like to convert me once, but he dropped it. Except that one time I really quizzed him about his theology, and he admitted that he believes I will end up in hell, and it really bothers him because he likes me a lot. Damn anti-semite!”
(2) With respect to the question of God interfering directly with the universe, that is still not something that science can really address. Here are two hypotheses:
“The universe is based on a set of laws that explain all interactions between everything. They include quantum mechanics, relativity, etc… we do not yet fully understand them, but believe that they are sufficient to explain all phenomena”
and
“The universe is based on a set of laws that explain all interactions between everything. They include quantum mechanics, relativity, etc… we do not yet fully understand them, but believe that they are sufficient to explain all phenomena. Oh, and a few thousand years ago, God used to do any damn thing he wanted, and when he was exercising His Divine Will, all bets were off. Aside from that, though, it’s all rules”.
How could any experiment ever disprove the second one? The only argument against it is Occam’s Razor.