Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Post Has Some New Information

The Post had a good story on the current state of the battle over the petition signatures that the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever gathered and submitted recently. These signatures are supposed to get a referendum on the ballot in November to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people, and the Montgomery County Board of Elections validated the petitions but a subsequent search by a group of volunteers has found a huge number of invalid signatures, including alleged evidence of fraud. A group of county citizens has filed suit against the election board, saying they didn't check the petitions properly and that the referendum should not be held.

I mentioned the other day that there had been a court hearing and a date had been set, but I only heard that through the grapevine and didn't have all the details. A Post reporter got more of it:
Lawyers involved in a challenge to the referendum on overturning the county's new protections for transgender people were in court last week to talk about the scope and timing of the case. The issue has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Robert A. Greenberg, and arguments are tentatively scheduled for mid-June.

Jonathan Shurberg, representing proponents of the protections, has challenged the Board of Elections' decision to let voters decide in November whether the law should stand. He has questioned the validity of signatures on petitions submitted to the board and the process the board used to certify them.

"We believe we have information that will end this thing if the judge agrees with our interpretation," said Shurberg, who represents Equality Maryland, a gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group. Lawyers Maneuver Against Transgender Referendum

They have to get the arguments in quickly, because this will or will not go into the November election, and they don't have much time to decide. The volunteers are working hard right now -- if you would like to help with the effort, please contact us through the email address up on the right -hand side of this screen, and we'll get your name to the people who are doing it.

There is some new and important information in this story.
Shurberg said Maryland's election law requires that a petition signature include all elements of an individual's name as it appears on the voter registration rolls. If a Montgomery voter registers using his or her middle initial, for instance, Shurberg said the petition signature must also include either the initial or the middle name. Shurberg and his team have reviewed thousands of signatures, and at last count, he said, nearly 4,200 signatures did not meet that standard.

Opponents, led by Citizens for Responsible Government, have said they followed the standards set by the board, which certified the more than 26,000 signatures, 1,800 more than the group needed to get on the ballot.

Kevin Karpinsky, the attorney representing the county's Board of Elections, was not available for comment earlier in the week.

OK, read those numbers. They had 1,800 more than they needed. Of the total, 4,200 have been found to be invalid. That means it's over. Of course, the judge needs to be convinced, I never try to guess what those guys are going to say. Still, if the law is as clear as this lawyer says it is, I don't see how they can let this referendum go on.
If Shurberg's argument fails, he said there is another batch of petitions that fall short of a separate requirement for independent verification from a so-called circulator. When opponents signed petitions printed off the Internet, he said, there was often only the signature of the signer and not the required second signature of the circulator.

The broad new protections for transgender individuals unanimously passed the County Council and were signed into law in November by County Executive Isiah Leggett (D). The law prohibits discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. Opponents contend that the law would allow a transgender male, for instance, to change in the women's locker room at a health club. Proponents say current law makes exceptions for such private areas.

Ha - that's a funny mistake in that last paragraph. A "transgender male" is a person who used to live as a female and is now male. It's not as complicated as it sounds, the person is a male, and that noun is modified by the adjective "transgender," to describe that they have had a history of sex change. A transgender male, as it says here, that is, someone who used to be a woman and is now a man, would not want to use the ladies room.

In fact, the CRW would assert that he should use the ladies room, since by some arcane scientific justification (absence of Y chromosome, for instance) the person is "really" a woman, pretending to be a man. I'll tell you, the ladies in the ladies room would not be amused if this guy came in.

Though "opponents contend" that the law would allow this, the truth of the matter is that right now anybody can legally change in any locker room, transgender or not. Exhibitionism, voyeurism, molestation are illegal, just going into a stall and changing is no crime. The new law doesn't say anything one way or the other about that situation.

The news here is that the lawyer for Equality Maryland is saying that even after the Board of Elections went through them, the CRW's petitions have 4,200 bad signatures on them. That means they have 2,400 fewer signatures than they needed to get. Those numbers had not been made public until now. Also, if that challenge doesn't work, Equality Maryland has another angle ready to go, petitions that were not legally signed by a certifier.

You might think of these as technicalities, but really the whole thing hinges on technicalities. The CRW was out there telling people this referendum would "protect the children," that it would keep predators and pedophiles out of the ladies room, and all kinds of crazy stuff, they were not candid about what the bill says -- the President of the County Council himself got in an argument with one of them, when they tried to tell him something that wasn't true. These signatures were gathered under false pretenses, but it's hard to challenge them on that basis, because it's a sad fact of life that people will sign something without paying attention. So the approach is to invalidate signatures because they fail to meet the legal standard.

52 Comments:

Anonymous Derrick said...

Here's what the Anti-Christians of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) recently posted on their website about the Day of Silence. Little do they know, this is a VOLUNTARY activity and only the students who want to participate are the ones who remain silent (if they chose). Nobody is forced to do it. Once again, the CRC gets it wrong!

Once again, CRC is promoting lies and pushing their very anti-Christian theocratic agenda.

Everytime I visit their sick website, I say a prayer:
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."


Here's their latest B.S.:
Liberty Counsel NEWS RELEASE Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 16, 2008 Students Have the Right Not to Remain Silent on the Day of Silence Orlando, FL – The annual 'Day of Silence,' sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), will be celebrated in many public schools. This event encourages students to remain silent on April 25. GLSEN claims the event counteracts bullying, but it is merely promoting an anti-heterosexual viewpoint. Schools can teach students the value of respect without accepting GLSEN’s propaganda event. Many states, like Florida, for example, have laws that require abstinence-based education when sexuality is discussed, so the school cannot recognize the Day of Silence without promoting abstinence.
Some school administrators do not understand that students cannot be penalized for refusing to observe the Day of Silence. Here are some recent complaints Liberty Counsel has received: Florida - A principal told a father that if his son was not at school on the Day of Silence that the boy would fail the school year. Indiana - A public school is participating in the Day of Silence against the wishes of some parents. Parents were told that it is “against the law” to cancel the program and that any absences would be unexcused that day. Iowa - A school board member told a former student that a student refusing to speak on the Day of Silence was not anymore disruptive in a school setting than a “Christian wearing a cross.” Oklahoma - A high school graduate wrote to her former principal to protest the celebration of the Day of Silence. The principal said that if he did not allow the Day of Silence, he could not allow Bible clubs and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. South Dakota - A student was told that if she is absent on the Day of Silence, she must write a paper explaining why she will not participate.
Parents can choose to keep their children home on the Day of Silence or support their children in a counter-observance of sexual purity. Liberty Counsel distributed a legal memorandum explaining how to protect schools from being hijacked by GLSEN’s political agenda. Student conduct causing a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities is not protected under the First Amendment. If a teacher asks a student a question during class, the student does not have a right to remain silent.
Liberty Counsel is encouraging students to mount a counter-celebration to promote a positive message of purity on the Day of Silence. Students are encouraged to wear white and to distribute flyers promoting sexual purity whenever other students are permitted to distribute literature promoting the Day of Silence.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: 'When it comes to the Day of Silence, silence is not an option. Students have the right not to remain silent. Students can refuse to attend school. They may mount a counter-protest in support of purity and the traditional family. While schools may be required to allow clubs to meet on campus, schools do not have to promote the Day of Silence. Students do not have the right to remain silent when called upon by teachers. In those states that require abstinence instruction, schools may not tolerate clubs that promote sexual promiscuity.'

the link:
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/dayofsilence.pdf

April 18, 2008 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

here's the link:

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/dayofsilence.pdf

April 18, 2008 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Weren't anti-family radicals here recently decrying the posting of comments that were off subject?

I guess anti-family commenters like Derrick are exempt.

Say, this isn't a propaganda blog, is it?

April 18, 2008 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

How can you call yourself, AnonFreak, "Pro-family" when you support a war that is ripping families apart?

How can you call yourself pro-Christian or pro-family when your "Christian Right" radical party supports the death penalty?

Stop being such a hypocrite.

April 19, 2008 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

How can you all yourself "pro-family" or "pro-Christian" when you support a war that the Bible doesn't condone?

April 19, 2008 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"Weren't anti-family radicals here recently decrying the posting of comments that were off subject?"

To be serious for a moment, Jim seems pretty tolerant of off topic comments. I think the complaint was more with the continual and incessant posting of off topic comments, especially those that aren’t even in the ball park of the subject matter.

April 19, 2008 3:13 PM  
Anonymous PTA said...

Say, this isn't a propaganda blog, is it?

No, this is the blog where commenters are free to comment, even anonymously if they want to. The propaganda forum and blogs, where you are only allowed to post comments if the moderator approves, are over at the CRC website. Their audio blog has had no new entries since 2005 and their linked to "Blog" has had no new entries for a month.

April 21, 2008 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, they aren't. Only if they agree with TTF or if they set TTF up with easily disputable argumentation.

Here's the words of the moderator:

"I would delete comments that introduce partisan politics without any justification, comments that repeat counterfactual points that have already been discussed, comments that make personal references and innuendoes, comments that are unnecessarily inflammatory, etc."

All subjective criteria. TTF advocates, including the moderator do these things all the time.

The site is propaganda.

April 21, 2008 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Welcome to a DEMOCRATIC country, AnonFreak!

April 21, 2008 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

You see, AnonFreak. We like to use this little thing called "science" in MCPS (and the United States).

I don't think that is "propaganda".

April 21, 2008 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Anonymous: If you do not like the rules of this blog site there is a simple solution for you...get lost! Civilized discourse is encouraged here, not the kind of blather you offer. If you do not agree with the comments of other writers, feel welcome to address them with civility and respect. That might be too much to ask of you, however.
You should be glad that you are tolerated here with your anachronistic, homophobic, and extreme right-wing comments. You are not a captive here; no one has tied you up and forced you to read people's opinions that you persistently insult, debase, or lie in response to. Get Lost!!
Supporter of TTF
(Oh, and btw, how do you enjoy not knowing who is talking to you...you with your hundreds of aliases?)

April 21, 2008 12:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you seem to have a mistaken idea about how this works. You're in my living room here. If I think you're rude or even unsociable I'll throw you out. If I don't like your tone of voice, your choice of topics, whatever, I don't have to be nice to you. There's nothing on this web site that promises you the freedom to be an asshole. I have been incredibly tolerant, but there are times people cross the line, and sometimes I delete comments, sometimes (only once so far) I delete a user from any access at all.

Is it subjective? Yes, it is. Two people have admin access to delete comments, you're not one of them. I am.

I enjoy the discussions, and the fact that people do come here to talk about issues that affect us all, and I even appreciate that people who disagree with our position come here to explain their point of view. I've never deleted any comment because I disagreed with the opinion, but I have deleted lots of comments. And if I did decide to delete one just because I disagreed with it, well, I could do that. You want to keep me in a happy mood.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

JimK

April 21, 2008 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 21, 2008 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Around here the rule is morons comments will be deleted.

April 21, 2008 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if only

April 21, 2008 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben Stein's new documentary, Expelled, which chronicles the censorship of teachers, professors and students who question the theory of Darwinian evolution, performed well at the box office over the weekend.

It's a message that garnered Dr. James Dobson's endorsement and seems to resonate with Americans. The documentary, which opened Friday at 1,000 theaters nationwide, brought in $3.2 million. It finished fifth overall in per-theater earnings, according to Box Office Mojo.

Tom Neven, editorial director for Youth Outreach at Focus on the Family, called it a "very good showing."

April 21, 2008 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Once again, AnonFreak, where's the science? We don't teach religion in public schools because we believe in a separation of Church and State.

Jesus created Darwin and envisioned a path for him, as He does for all of us. Darwin walked that path that Jesus built because He wanted to show that His creation, Man Kind, is capable of understanding the world in which it lives.

Just because science, once again, outdoes the Bible doesn't make it (science) wrong. Jesus wanted us to learn. Do you still stone women, too, AnonFreak? God gave us the ability to think...why don't you use that gift?

On another note--

I recommend you read, "Why the Christian Right is Wrong" by ordained minister, Robin Meyers.

April 21, 2008 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Derrick, if you don't believe there's a scientific case for intelligent design, you won't want to be at Harvard, America's finest institution of higher learning, tomorrow night where Dinesh D'Souza will be debating Dan Barker, the head of the Freedom from Religion Foundation on this very topic.

The problem with Darwinist thinking as approached by public schools is that it implies that evolution explains the origin of life and that it proves that the universe is not designed. It proves neither and to say so is a metaphysical statement that shouldn't be advocated in public schools if they are to observe the Constitution.

If you want an education, go see Stein's movie. The most humorous part is where he gets Ricard Dawkins to admit that intelligent design is a possible explanation for life on Earth. Dawkins, however, will only accept this of the designers are space aliens rather than a Creator. Dawkins is aware, as most who read his books aren't, that evolution cannot explain life.

Schools should teach the truth not atheism.

April 21, 2008 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

And what would you think of Harvard if they believed that ID is not scientific at all, AnonFreak?

No, AnonFreak-- School should teach science AND truth, not stories.

April 21, 2008 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Harvard obviously thinks its debatable, ergo the debate.

Truth and science aren't contradictory. Your statements is indicative of the liberties atheists have taken with evolutionary theory to try to support their theological views. This is unconstitutional and needs to be corrected.

Speaking of correction, can you explain how evolutionary theory shows how life began or that it wasn't designed?

Go ahead. Take a shot.

April 21, 2008 10:00 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Stunning said...
"ergo the [ID] debate."
--
Just like PFOX - Manufactured debate:

In Defense of Evolution
Biologist Ken Miller on why ID is a "science stopper," why evolution matters, and more
--
Tons more info here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

April 21, 2008 11:53 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Actually, science has proven again and again that there is no need to posit a designer. There are a sufficient number of websites that delve into this. This blog is about other things.

As for the origin of life, we also know the ways matter can self-aggregate and then begin to replicate. Do we know how life arose here, 3.5 billion years ago? Not yet. But we will eventually. One thing for sure is we will never know if we simply stick our head (God-given or not) in a hole and stop trying.

April 21, 2008 11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Actually, science has proven again and again that there is no need to posit a designer."

No, it hasn't. Saying that is when you leave science and enter the world of metaphysics.

"There are a sufficient number of websites that delve into this. This blog is about other things."

The moderator of this blog has often said the whole concern of this blog expands to a supposed conflict between science and faith and he has often brought up the IT controversy.

"As for the origin of life, we also know the ways matter can self-aggregate and then begin to replicate."

That's just untrue.

"Do we know how life arose here, 3.5 billion years ago? Not yet. But we will eventually. One thing for sure is we will never know if we simply stick our head (God-given or not) in a hole and stop trying."

Why does theorizing that there was a designer constitute sticking your head in the sand?

April 22, 2008 12:10 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Because throughout the history of science every time there has been an "I don't know" moment and the tools have then been developed to penetrate more deeply, the answer has been discovered. Your god is "the god of the gaps," a ready-made, convenient excuse for laziness when it comes to the hard work of discovery.

Like many scientists, I want to "know," and not be coddled by some stories from the past. And the bottom line of all this is, that when the day is over and you've inserted god into every equation you can't be bothered to solve yourself, you're left with a god you don't understand and can't explain. So you not only know nothing about nature, you know nothing about God, either.
Are there forces in the multiverse we don't understand? Undoubtedly. Are those forces manifesting on our little planet as an angry, jealous old man with a white beard? I think it unlikely. Is it irrational that humans throughout history would create somewhat approachable gods to demystify nature and help deal with mortality? No. But we're talking about evolution and science and the Judeo-Christian God has no place in that drama except possibly as a Prime Mover, in which case it isn't helpful to science in any way, and shouldn't be taught as science. You still can't begin to explain the Prime Mover, but you can wrack your brain in theology class, not science class.

April 22, 2008 6:52 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

You forgot the rest of the CitizensLink propaganda about Ben Stein's stupid film, Anon. This is Dobson blowing his own horn and writing his own propaganda:

Ben Stein's new documentary, Expelled, which chronicles the censorship of teachers, professors and students who question the theory of Darwinian evolution, performed well at the box office over the weekend.

It's a message that garnered Dr. James Dobson's endorsement and seems to resonate with Americans. The documentary, which opened Friday at 1,000 theaters nationwide, brought in $3.2 million. It finished fifth overall in per-theater earnings, according to Box Office Mojo.

Tom Neven, editorial director for Youth Outreach at Focus on the Family, called it a "very good showing."

[Omitted part]It shows that thousands of Americans decided to ignore the propaganda being put forth by those who would wish to expel Expelled from theaters," he said. "The campaign of half-truths and smear tactics actually caused many to want to see for themselves what the fuss was about, and they came out of theaters seeing that Ben Stein makes a good case — both on the screen and in his response to those who would censor him."

Mark Mathis, executive producer of the movie, said the strong showing should get Hollywood's attention.

"There's a lot of garbage out there in our theaters," he told OneNewsNow. "And when investors stick their necks out and risk their hard-earned money to see a movie like this produced, they're taking a big risk — and they're hoping that people will honor that and go see it."


The bottom line is the money. Dobson doesn't want his lunatic fringe investor cronies to lose their shirts so he's trying to create the impression that the movie's worth watching. Anyone who wants to learn about science will do better in a library than at a movie theater.

April 22, 2008 7:02 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Of course, transsexuals are proof of intelligent design. Otherwise, childless persons who take themselves out of the gene pool (like me and many other trans folk) would have selected ourselves out of Darwin’s world eons ago. Clearly, God wanted us here for a reason; perhaps as a lesson in tolerance and humility.

Peace,

Cynthia

April 22, 2008 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia

The theory of evolution doesn't contradict the possibility of intelligent design. The idea that the two are contradictory is a tenet of a branch of a fringe religious movement called atheism.

AB

Everything you said applies more accurately to Al Gore and his very impeachable movie on global warming.

Dana

Judeo-Christianity is not concerned with the God of the gaps but the God of all creation. The quest to discover more about the Creator and Designer has led scientists throughout the ages to study the physical world to gain insight into his nature, as is described in the first chapter of Romans. The scientific method was created by a religious Judeo-Christian and most of the major scientists in history were inspired to pursue their work by a desire to know God better. Indeed, there are many stories of scientists who made discoveries when they refused to accept the idea that the universe is random but insisted that there is an undetected design to it. Let me know if you'd like a list of some of the major players.

Nothing shows your bias and hatred of God more than your description of him: "an angry, jealous old man with a white beard". This is Philip Pullman's vision not that of scripture. Scripture doesn't depict God as old, he is described as outside of time, the same whenever he is encountered. Scripture doesn't say God has a beard, it says he is a spirit. While he is sometimes described as jealous and angry, this is a partial picture since scripture also says he is "slow to anger" and "his mercy is new every morning". You could just as easily have said he is patient and merciful. Your choices display your bias.

As for the idea that God is simply a story to "coddle" mankind, why would man take comfort in inventing a God whose righteousness is so much more terrible than anything seen in nature? Indeed, it is atheists who find comfort in the idea that there is no afterlife and no Creator to be accountable to.

April 22, 2008 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

God created Darwin and Darwin carried out the plans that God wanted him to.

You can't either:
a. take the Bible word-for-word

or

b. make exceptions as you go along with what the Bible says.

You can't make it up as you go along, AnonFreak.

Pick either A or B and stick with it!

April 22, 2008 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I'm incensed at the tone of this discussion. How dare you say the world was not designed??? You insult my religion- may you be touched by his noodly appendage and see the truth.

I pray you see the error of your evil pastaless ways!

Ramen,
Andrea
In his holy name, FSM
(although for Passover, I am abstaining from the blessed food)

April 22, 2008 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

ID, by positing a supernatural creator, is therefore, pure and simple, a religious doctrine, and should not receive funding from public sources.

Now, back to the Day of Silence.

Anti-lgbt forces, including the Liberty people, PFOX (I got an email on it), ADF, FOF, etc., have been encouraging conservative christian parents to find out what schools "endorse" the Day of Silence and to keep their children home from school that day. All school systems consider not coming to school as, of course, not coming to school, and therefore and unexcused absence. Such an effort to encourage students to skip school in protest isn't protected under the first amendment (in fact it's probably illegal). It's a publicity stunt by ADF, to try to generate lawsuits against schools if they mark students absent, therefore to get notice for ADF. None of it is child-centered or student initiated (which the Day of Silence is in it's entirety).

No student, absolutely none, anywhere, of course, is required to participate in the Day of Silence. To present otherwise is simply dishonest. I'm amazed to how far down the path of sinfulness groups such as CRC/G/W, PFOX, ADL, et. al. will go in their ongoing efforts to oppress queer people.

They used the phrase "anti-heterosexual" to describe people who are silent on that day. First time I'd heard that one.

Yours in pollen-laden air.

Robert

April 22, 2008 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ID, by positing a supernatural creator, is therefore, pure and simple, a religious doctrine, and should not receive funding from public sources."

ID doesn't "posit a supernatural creator". Proof is Dawkins view, expressed in Stein's film that the intelligent designers were possibly extraterrestials.

In any case, no one is suggesting that ID receive public funding. The point is that teaching in public schools has been tilted to imply that the forces of nature weren't designed. Whether they were or not is a religious question and textbooks that state that the forces of nature are random are unconstitutionally supporting the establishment of a certain religious point of view.

April 22, 2008 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I saw on a previous post that Orin made a comment along the lines that teachers should be trained that they teach all the children, regardless.

I can't agree more. They are all in my care, even those who make statements that, if an adult made them, I would consider offensive or even bigoted.

I recall a time last year, when, before class, two students got into a heated debate about gay marriage (certainly not at my instigation). The student who strenuously supported same-gender marriage was very sure of himself, and was sort of browbeating the student who felt that being gay was sinful. She (the latter student) was unsure of herself, but was making a definite effort to step up to the plate and defend what she saw as her family's values.

So what did I do? I supported the student who needed my support, talked to the other student about being tolerant of opinions rather than his own, brought the students together and set some limits around the discussion and how they should speak to one another (including, of course, that they could discuss this at lunchtime, but when the bell rang our focus needed to be on Algebra).

Anyway, I agree Orin, we should support and assist all students, including those we disagree with, including those with opinions which offend us personally.

That goes for children. Regina Griggs, Theresa Rickman, et al are not children; I feel no obligation to tolerate their opinions, and consider that they do not have any free speech rights within the schools.

rrjr

April 22, 2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Robert, I think you meant ADF in your fourth paragraph- not ADL- at least I sure hope so!

Andrea

April 22, 2008 12:26 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Listen, Anon, I know my Bible better than you do. I know all the descriptions of God, and I know God is marketed to the young in ways to inculcate both fear and reverence. My focus on the anger and intolerance and yes, genocidal orders, is because people like you pretend otherwise. Present the full picture or don't present anything at all.

Again, as has been pointed out, ID is religion, not science. You can believe in God or ETs, but you are then no closer to telling us who made God or the ETs. So you've solved nothing.

And you know nothing about my beliefs, because I haven't told you. You probably don't even know that my tradition teaches us to challenge everything, and not accept what the preacher says.

April 22, 2008 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonFreak- you are such a Christian fascist. That's obvious!!!

Christian fascism is on the rise in the United states and the signs are unmistakable.

Scholars will argue over the precise definition of fascism, but Mussolini knew the essence of it: the merger of corporate and government power.

Political scientist Lawrence Britt recently published a concise list of the fourteen characteristics of fascism. He studied the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet and found that they have the following in common:

1. powerful and continuing nationalism

2. disdain for the recognition of human rights

3. identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause

4. supremacy of the military

5. rampant sexism

6. controlled mass media

7. obsession with national security

8. religion and government intertwined

9. protection of corporate power

10. suppression of labor power

11. disdain for intellectuals and the arts

12. obsession with crime and punishment

13. rampant cronyism and corruption

14. fraudulent elections

Which are obvious in America today??? THEY ALL ARE!

The disturbing but vital truth is that Christian Right has energized the entire agenda with the reputed blessings of a Republican God.

Yup, sounds like AnonFreak's friends (CRC/G, PFOX, AFD, Exodus International, G.W. Bush) to me! Don't you agree?

April 22, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Listen, Anon, I know my Bible better than you do. I know all the descriptions of God,"

We know you are conversant with scripture. That's how we know you aren't innocently ignorant when you tell lies about God.

"and I know God is marketed to the young in ways to inculcate both fear and reverence."

Bias again. The teaching of a religion you don't like is "marketing". Judeo-Christians do indeed teach children to reverence God.

"My focus on the anger and intolerance and yes, genocidal orders, is because people like you pretend otherwise."

Actually, you didn't bring up "intolerance" and "genocide" before. Are we discussing TTF definitions or the English language? The Creator does indeed have the right to judge his creation.

"Present the full picture or don't present anything at all."

Traditional churches discuss all aspects of God's nature. Liberal congregations are the ones who try to create their own version of God. I'll refer you to "Knowing God" by Charles Colson.

"Again, as has been pointed out, ID is religion, not science."

Again, telling kids that ID is wrong is religion, not science.

"You can believe in God or ETs, but you are then no closer to telling us who made God or the ETs. So you've solved nothing."

God doesn't require a Creator because he is outside of time. He exists eternally.

Dawkins, atheist extraordinaire, is the one bringing up ETs. He does so because he wants to explain the clear signs that the universe was designed without having to concede the existence of God.

"And you know nothing about my beliefs, because I haven't told you."

You've actually posted them before but I forgot them. Not relevant what you say you believe anyway. Your attack on God earlier speaks for itself.

"You probably don't even know that my tradition teaches us to challenge everything, and not accept what the preacher says."

That's what evangelical Christianity says, somewhat. There are standards to hold the preacher to. The difference is not that you challenge everything and Judeo-Christians don't. To challenge something, you have to have a standard for the challenge. You don't challenge those standards that you use to discern truth. The difference is that you have a different standard to judge truth by. Yours is wrong.

April 22, 2008 6:33 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Mine is wrong? And who are you to judge, you who is nameless? So sad.

April 22, 2008 9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who do I have to be to dare to think you're wrong? Feel free to disagree but you were earlier feigning the impossible posture that you question everything when you would actually have to have some standards to allow you to do that. In short, you haven't thought too deeply.

April 22, 2008 11:01 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I have no doubt that I think far more deeply than you do. I question what I read and hear, and I need no absolute standard by which to manage that. You are the one who said "my standard is wrong." Believe what you like, but you have no grounds to say my standard is "wrong."

And you are the embarrassing one when you make such absurd statements such as I "tell lies about God." Or that "God exists eternally," outside of time, as if you have a clue what time is.

April 22, 2008 11:38 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonFreak-

Answer this question for me:

Why do you want to use God and the Bible only for anti-Christian antics?

Why are you turning God into this hateful, fearless being: everything that he was against?

I don't know what you were taught in church as a child but my church taught me that Jesus is love. I'm sorry you had a different (and quite wrong) teaching of the Bible. You know, you can change. Change IS possible. You're an adult now, you can even attempt thinking for yourself.

What do you pray for at night before you go to sleep? Is it, "God, please kill all the fags...They should have their blood upon them. I mean...isn't that what the Bible says? Amen." ????????????

Stop using my Lord, Jesus Christ, as a means of hate. I find it your intolerance of the Christian faith quite offensive.

April 23, 2008 6:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the pseudo-religious babble, Derrick.

How about the topic we were discussing. Do you believe that God designed the universe?

Do you believe kids in school should be taught that the universe is not designed?

Do you think public schools should stay away from teaching religious concepts like whether the universe is designed?

April 23, 2008 7:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have no doubt that I think far more deeply than you do."

While you're busily challenging everyone and everything else, Dana, you might want to think about stopping a moment and challenging yourself.

It could be your socratic moment among your many senior ones.

April 23, 2008 7:20 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

What amazes me is that you think that your mindless, fundamentalist exhortations have any traction here at all.

I'll answer your questions.

"Do you believe that God designed the universe?"

Not your conception of God.

"Do you believe kids in school should be taught that the universe is not designed?"

I don't think kids should be taught anything about the creation of the universe outside of scientific fact and hypothesis.

"Do you think public schools should stay away from teaching religious concepts like whether the universe is designed?"

It's not a religious concept other than you've made it one. Scientifically speaking there is no evidence for a designer. I have no problem with discussions of the anthropic ptrinciple or the like, as long as they remain within the realm of science.

April 23, 2008 9:34 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

From dictionary.com:

sci•ence Pronunciation [sahy-uhns]–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


re•li•gion Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn]–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

From wikipedia.com (there was no definition at dictionary.com)

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[4][5] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[6][7] Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[10][11][12][13] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[14] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[15] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[16]

As described here, Intelligent Design is a theory. Although theories are an integral part of science, (indeed, science would not be possible without them,) what most people consider science involves theories which can be tested by independent scientists to achieve the same results.

Some theories postulated by scientists take years to prove, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, or the existence of the Higgs Boson (ironically sometimes called the “God Particle) which just might be found at the Large Hadron Collider being built by CERN. Evolution is a theory, and many experiments have been run which agree with that framework. There are still gaps to be filled in our understanding of this theory, but scientist around the world are working on all sorts of experiments that they compare to our understanding of this theory. If they find something that doesn’t fit the theory, they will have to modify it or throw it out.

To be science, Intelligent Designers need to develop an experiment that would prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer, or systematically debunk the infinitude of other theories that could also explain the existence of our universe – like a Stupid Designer, which would go a long way to explain the duck-billed platypus, boils, the IRS, and Paris Hilton.

SETI (the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) may one day find evidence of aliens, and perhaps we might even have the opportunity to communicate with them. We should probably ask if THEY happened to create life on our little planet here.

As far as I know, the ID camp has not put forth any experiments which could be tested to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is just a theory, not a science.

Peace,

Cynthia

April 23, 2008 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea- not anon
Yes, sure, I'll go to Colson for info on religion, right after I read the collected works of Dobson, Robertson and Falwell. Dr. Beyer can translate the Bible, she knows Hebrew and Aramaic- I doubt you know our tradition at all or know the Bible nearly as well.

April 23, 2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'll answer your questions."

No one asked you to repeat your narcisstic ramblings, Dana. I asked Derrick those questions because he pretends to believe in Christianity. Wanted to hear if his version of Christianity included believing God created the world.

"Yes, sure, I'll go to Colson for info on religion"

It wouldn't be a bad idea, Andrea. You might learn something. I didn't tell Dana that to teach a religious point of view, however, but merely to help the dingbat doctor see what a warped view it is to say evangelical Christians only focus on certain aspects of God. Evangelicals believe God is infinite and are always seeking to know him more fully. Colson's book articulates this well.

"As far as I know, the ID camp has not put forth any experiments which could be tested to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is just a theory, not a science."

Cynthia

I think it can be deduced from observing the physical world but I won't argue with you. The point I've been making is not that schools should teach ID but that the textbooks being used in schools are coming out and saying the universe is random. This is something that can't be proven, is a religious position and shouldn't be taught in schools if other religious positions can't be. The state should not be in this business of supporting atheism. It is a religious viewpoint that has caused much suffering and evil in our world.

April 23, 2008 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Science is not religion. Unlike religion, science is NOT based on the supernatural. It is based on empirical evidence which is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. And unlike religion, science is not fixed, it's findings change as new studies and technologies reveal the empirical evidence the old ways couldn't uncover.

April 24, 2008 7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And when you say the universe is random, that it not science, that is a religious statement. THe schools with textbooks that make those kind os assertions are promoting a religion. The Constitution(if you'll educate yourself, you'll discover this), is designed so that government doesn't favor one religion over another. Atheism, especially, should not be promoted by public schools. It is a religious belief that has caused widespread evil and suffering.

April 24, 2008 8:25 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Provide evidence that the universe is not random. Create an hypothesis, collect data, and then prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Your faith is irrelevant to this discussion, or to science classes.

April 24, 2008 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Provide evidence that the universe is random. Create an hypothesis, collect data, and then prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Your faith in randomness is irrelevant to this discussion, or to science classes.

Teaching randomness in school is an infringement of the constitutional rights of students.

April 24, 2008 10:37 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Teaching randomness in school is an infringement of the constitutional rights of students.

The CRW has hit a new low. Quantum physics now is a religion ... and can't be taught? Probability theory can't be taught? Statistics, survey methods, the experimental method, can't be taught? Unconstitutional ... this is a new low.

JimK

April 24, 2008 11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,

If you believe that it can be proved that the universe is random, you have to concede that the test could also prove the opposite- that is purposed.

You can't have both ways.

Now, go back to gnawing on some old chicken bones.

April 24, 2008 11:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home