Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Libsaredense
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There you go. Right there, first phrase of the first amendment.
What it means is that government is not allowed to play favourites one way or the other, which means your seperation of church and state as most religions are mutually exlusive.
This is actually consistent throught the document, where the alternative of being able to affirm to an oath as opposed to swear to it, is ever-present.
They did this because of the religious lunacies of the old world more then anything. The founding fathers were out to make a society where you could really be free to believe what you wanted, and they saw secularism as the way to do this.
And face it, they were right. Look at America today, look at your dominance in the sciences, your long proud human rights record (Before Bush at least) and all of that. Look at how you are falling behind now that the emphasis has shifted to being religious.
This is not to say that religion should be banned, an atheist state is no more secular then a theocracy, but rather that government and religion should not mix if it can possibly be avoided.
This is the heart of the argument over Creationism versus Evolution, not the actual mechanisms of how we got here, but rather that the simple fact of Creationism making it into America's schools not because it is a scientifically valid theory (It doesn't even really qualify as a theory, seen as it is untested, unverified, and is based purely on faith) but because it is a belief held by a religious group.
It is a battle over a culture where a man can declare those who do not share his religious beliefs to not be real citizens (GHW Bush) and still get elected president.
Make no mistake, that statement told atheists around the world just what was at stake here, not simply the right to be an atheist, but also the right to be a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist or even a Christian of another denomination in America. It is a fight against the gas chambers making their way to the world's last declared super-power.
It is a fight for the truth, and against the idea that one truth needs to be nullified by being balanced with an equal and opposite lie. It is a fight against propaganda.
-
On joining Hillary
[Read the article: Goodbye, Mr. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]America needs a unifier or a partisan and for all of Hillary's negatives on the right, she is not a partisan. For all of her compromises up to this time (Censorship and war for example) she is not a unifier. She is the worst of both worlds.
-
rupert_c
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How does evolution support racism?
It supports medical findings that some races are more prone to heart desease, and some races are more prone to skin cancer, but given that we don't even know what intelligence really is (We have yet to develop a really reliable IQ test for example) it doesn't exactly have much to say on that subject.
-
rupert_c
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See what I said about intelligence?
Evolution has nothing to say about racial superiority one way or the other, nor did Darwin actually support it being used for that purpose.
Further, to be absolutely blunt about it, that nasty people used a psuedoscience version of an argument or scientific field does not invalidate the argument or scientific field.
By the exact same logic you have applied here, I could say that chemistry is evil because Hitler had to get the gas for his gas chambers somewhere.
Or that economics as a field of study is evil, because hey, look at child labour. Economics even qualifies as a prime suspect behind most of mankinds wars.
Evolution as a theory is valid, that bad people extropolated bad things from it, is not evidence against for or against it.
-
This debate illustrated more then anything else
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Project Runway"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]why Hillary shouldn't be president.
Edwards' statement on her Iran vote was absolutely accurate, and Hillary actually couldn't answer it except with an ad-hominem attack.
She is not a good candidate.