I welcome the idea of debate on abortion, contraception, evolution, stem-cell research, etc. I think these things need to be constantly spoken of, and debated; although on the other hand, I'm really not liking the idea of secular fundamentalism. It's bad enough hearing someone say that I'm going to go to hell or allah wants me dead....then to hear someone fight against people whom just believe. We've suffered the Inquisition and forced secular communism...do we really need to be fundamentalists to solve the issues? http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=30673
In georgia, there is a state politician who is trying to make abortion illegal...so if your wife gets raped, ends up pregnant, has an abortion, she goes to jail while the rapist gets a slap on the wrist...interesting, huh? Boortz had a story about it this morning.
For probably the first time ever I have to agree with you d16man despite your constant insane ramblings in the last couple of weeks. No idea who Boortz is though but then again I don't live in the US.
I don't think such laws will pass through court. No matter how different our courts get, they'll always have some reasonable room for women in such cases. I've listened to many cases...including those on abortions, and I feel that sense from almost every judge.
I agree, but all it takes is for one nut job judge (and there are plenty of them) to say that it is perfectly fine and to rule for it. Then while the case is caught up in red tape, and idiot law is being enforced...
I tend to think Judges are the most honest sector of our government...but you're right, it only takes a few to screw the reasonable.
Absolutely. I know there are a bunch of fine judges out there, but there are also the nuts. Look at some of the recent supreme court cases that federal judges have re-ruled on.
Any in particular that I may look into? I like our court system in general. If functioning properly...it's reason at it's best.
Boortz has some interesting things to say...Rick, the one I was reading recently was about the death penalty...where lethal injection was considered cruel and unusual punishment and therefore couldn't be used...Supreme court said it was fine, local and state judges ruled otherwise...It was surrounding the death of Tookie Williams I do believe, and some nutjob killer in FL as well...
That reminds me, Bill is on in 40 minutes on FOX News. Gotta get my daily fix of Bill, he is one completely insane mother fucker that's for sure.
Rick, I abhor atheist preaching, as I suspect you know. And I don't know if I would call myself a secular fundamentalist. However, I do know I strenously object, for instance, to courses inside a science division devoted to "intelligent design." If one wants the debate, place it in philosophy. But there is patently nothing scientific in approach about intelligent design, and it is the deepest perversion of educational inquiry to seek to insert it so. 25 years ago (as a ridiculously overwrought student body president), I fought and won this fight in our local community college district - back then, it was "creatonism," and the creationist warrior - the would be "science" teacher - was a teacher of industrial arts with only his creationist texts as his "textbooks." Despite the fact I drew him out, and showed him to have an absolutely paltry grasp of basic biological processes, it was a narrow but important victory. The tools may have changed, the package may have slickened, but the conclusion has not: questions of God, or god, have no place in a course purporting to teach via scientific, empirical, testable inquiry. They very well belong elsewhere, as these questions get to the heart of meaning. If this makes me a secular fundamentalist, I suppose, so be it.
I actually disagree. I believe in ID, although not in its current format as being placed forward by the extreme right. I believe more in the format of the universe as a self evolving system based on intelligent inherent energy.
Darksat, I have no issue with your disagreement. The operative words are: -questions of belief, predicated on faith, do not belong in a class purporting to be based on empirical search and testable methodology. I'd gladly join you in a philosophy seminar for such questions. By the way - "all those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand." LOL.
Actually, I didn't know you abhor athiest preaching. I suppose I don't go into a lot of 'I hate your religion threads'. Frankly I don't hate atheists, either, but I think some of them mirror their 'enemies'. Most people that don't have the faith are just average joes...not really trying to push their opinion on others. Many religious people work that way as well. I feel a sort of sadiness that we can't just accept each other to some level. It seems that conflict is desireable. Well, that is something that should be discussed and reviewed. Nothing wrong with that. Well, it's a view upon your standards of science. I personally don't have a disagreement with religion trying to partake into science, but I do think every reputable process or assertion in science has to be open to peer review. I would say a secular fundamentalist wants to rid the world of religion...period. I do not perceive you to be that sort of person.
I can do that...go to MLK street. Shit always seems to go down there. You're hands will be raised, and you're pockets will be empty. : )
Sorry, Rick - I thought we might have once exchanged some thoughts on the subject of "religious atheists" - something like I had said I find it reprehensible to be as zealous in preaching atheism as it is in condemning another by one's religious viewpoint, when it is all (categorically saying: God exists; God does not exist) ultimately based on faith...and you had said this was the "best kind" of atheist, or something to the effect. I got it wrong, likely. I'm with you - it is sad we can't all accept we all have our point of view, worthy of respect. I'm all for open debate - but because the two worlds of faith and empirical research are mutually exclusive, I object to questions of faith being pursued in classes devoted to science. I guess it seems to me that a peer review won't address the fundamental methodological problem - e.g., how does one go about testing the presence of god in speciation among mammals? I believe the world would be a better place without religion - but I have doubts, even in my own story. I also absolutely believe, even if I had no doubts, that it is patently none of my damn business, and we all should believe what we want.