The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Oleg]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

The Templeton Foundation awaits.

[Tank]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

[Brownie]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

This.

And to Tank's response to my comments earlier, thank you. I agree.

Holy shit, does this mean I'm a goddamn Pinko commie now? Nah.

[butthead]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.

[morpheus]

I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday.  I win.

[Jon]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.

Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.

Take that, Morph.

[Oleg]

I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday.  I win.

No you don't.  I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.

[morpheus]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.

Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.

Take that, Morph.

Take what?  And where should I take it?  I'm so confused today.

[morpheus]

I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday.  I win.

No you don't.  I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.

I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.

[Oleg]

I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday.  I win.

No you don't.  I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.

I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.

sure.

[Jon]

Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

That's totally reasonable. I don't care if you think evolution happens because Mother Nature used pixie dust, or because Jesus waved his magic wand, or because Zeus started the process with a magic lightning bolt. Just don't disregard science to take some silly story literally.

Hell, I don't care if you even do that. Believe what you want. Just don't legislate so that I, or my kids, or the kids of anyone else are forced to learn it in public schools. I'm not looking for everyone to think like me (fuck I've been wrong about so many things before, that would make a disasterous world), I'm just looking for total neutrality from the government on the issue of religion.

Take that, Morph.

Take what?  And where should I take it?  I'm so confused today.

Oh, it was just because you posted that just before I hit submit.

[Slaky]

I haven't looked at Desipio since Friday.  I win.

No you don't.  I think we all win by engaging in a free and open discourse.

I think the word you're looking for is STRAW MAN.

That's three words, dude.

[Tank]

Take what?  And where should I take it?

Take that sand to your ass and pound it?

[CubFaninHydePark]

A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

I don't think this has really been pointed out--but this bill is the epitome of 'Doublespeak.'  George Orwell would have been aghast to read such a thing.

The only 'discourse' that has any room to 'analyze, critique and review scientific theories' is science itself.  There isn't a religious institution on this planet that can credibly claim to offer anything resembling an intelligent or thoughtful analysis, critique or review of anything scientific...Mostly because every religion of consequence predates the scientific method by at least 1000 years.  It's ridiculous to think that anything in the actual content of religions of consequence (meaning not batshit crazy scientologists or cults) can apply to an intellectual advancement made well after content had stopped being added to a religion's doctrine.

To say otherwise is to say that us lowly mortals are capable of adding shit to religious doctrine that isn't actually in the religious texts.  Which would make you a prophet.

Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible.  God could not have "created" a random process.  It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination.  If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion.  If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.

Of course, I'm just pointing out that omnipotence and free-will cannot ever be squared--but that insight is particularly relevant here.  Either evolution is truly random, or it's not evolution. Randomness is an essential part of its definition.  It's just a bunch of dominos falling in a manner entirely known by some omnipotent being.  And that's not science.

So fuck Bobby Jindal for passing a doublespeak bill that undermines the most intelligent discourse that humanity has come up with in the last, good long while...a discourse that religion has no answer to and a discourse that has actually done more to improve the human condition than any other discourse.

(/ducks from any incoming postmodern critiques of the scientific method, etc.)

[Jon]

No "post-modern dispute," but Natural Selection is most assuredly not random. It's not "designed," but it is "designoid," due to its adherence to consistent rules.

Natural Selection acts by the combination of the laws of physics, probability, game theory, and any of a number of other calculable concepts. The very notion of "Natural Selection" is actually an explanation of the brake on random evolution. Only beings that are viable survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore only certain types of creatures develop. And due to the needed parsimony due to limited resources, pretty much every benefit comes with a cost. This is why we don't see winged spiders or wolves with horns.