$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Child abuse.
The museum has a planetarium. But its programs, unlike those at other planetariums, will say that the light from the stars we see did not take millions of years to get here.
There also is a reproduction of a portion of the Grand Canyon. The message there is that it was created very quickly, from the waters from Noah's flood. The fossils in rock layers there and in many other places around the world are of animals that drowned in the flood, the museum says.
Some of the exhibits would be the envy of any natural history museum.
There are, for example, 10,000 minerals from a collection that was donated to the museum, fossil dinosaur eggs from China that Ham says are worth $40,000, and a donated collection of dinosaur toys that has been valued at $50,000.
There also will be an exhibit suggesting that belief in evolution is the root of most of modern society's evils. It shows models of children leaving a church where the minister believes in evolution. Soon the girl is on the phone to Planned Parenthood, while the boy cruises the Internet for pornography sites.
Edit:
The more I think about it, this is awesome for atheists, we should organize field-trips!
Yikes! that is scary stuff. People will go to no ends to turn fantasy into reality.
You want scary.
In seventeen states it is still illegal for an atheist to hold public office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8am5YCqwUbgWill it be open on Sunday?
Only for Jews and Muslims...but they're not allowed from Friday evening to Saturday evening.
In seventeen states it is still illegal for an atheist to hold public office.
Blimey.
They'd rather have a giffer queer than an atheist.
Who'da thunk it?
I don't believe the majority of that poll...sounds way too PC. I'm not above giving people credit where credit is due, but 92% would elect a Jew? 88% a woman? 72% a Mormon? Bullshit.
Blimey.
They'd rather have a giffer queer than an atheist.
Who'da thunk it?
Come on, you know polls have little to no statistical validity.
Come on, you know polls have little to no statistical validity.
Depends on the source...a lot of the bigger polls seem to be pretty solid from a scientific standard.
That one that UT posted looks so wrong though. But I don't think it's an issue with the mechanics of the poll...just the people polled.
Depends on the source...a lot of the bigger polls seem to be pretty solid from a scientific standard.
That one that UT posted looks so wrong though. But I don't think it's an issue with the mechanics of the poll...just the people polled.
It comes down to sample size and the Z. For example, a telephone poll of 400 people on the streets of San Francisco, Calif hardly can be extrapolated to "the people of the US would vote for..." The margin of error is the other thing that is important to note.
Telephone polls are some of the worst. All you did was sample people who have telephones.
The most amazing thing is often how small the sample size is. You hear it all the time on TV. "The number of Americans that would vote for X,Y, or Z is 45a%". Looking further you see the sample size was 846 people. Ok, please tell me how you extrapolate opinions of 846 people to 32 million people. It can't be done. The statistical validity hovers near zero.
Statistics, lies, and more statistics.
Polls are easily constructed through the pointed questions they ask to extract the information that the pollsters is after. Political polls and polls by special interest groups with very bland sounding names are some of the best at doing this. Did you ever get that telephone calll from some tighty-righty or lefty-loosey political organization? Listen carefully to the questions being asked. Often only yes or no answers with no clarification or middleground choice.
Polls.... spitoooie....:smashfrea
I don't believe the majority of that poll...sounds way too PC. I'm not above giving people credit where credit is due, but 92% would elect a Jew? 88% a woman? 72% a Mormon? Bullshit.
Remember these are all hypothetical candidates from their own party though... So say a woman Democrat ran against a white male Republican. This would indicate that 12% of Democrats would rather vote for the Republican, i.e. he would win with 62% of the vote.
I agree that if it was a phone interview the numbers will be skewed though, people don't like admitting their prejudices out loud.
Or how about this, the pollsters know what they want to find out in the end. Obviously one of the points here was to put it to the Atheists. So I conduct a poll Sunday morning in front of a Hispanic catholic church, a black southern Baptist church, and a synagogue. I will bet you the results would be very close to what you see above. You will never know from where and how the results were obtained. The pollster may just say, “hey we just stood on the street and asked people.” In the mean time the people who posted this little ditty actually were members of the religious right that wanted to send home a message or members of an anti-US group of people who want to show how religion dominates the political process in today’s election process. Who knows?
Remember these are all hypothetical candidates from their own party though... So say a woman Democrat ran against a white male Republican. This would indicate that 12% of Democrats would rather vote for the Republican, i.e. he would win with 62% of the vote.
I don't think the numbers would quite mesh like that, but I understand what you are saying. Based on personal experience and some of what I've seen in my lifetime, it would seem that people would rather not vote at all rather than vote outside their party.
I agree that if it was a phone interview the numbers will be skewed though, people don't like admitting their prejudices out loud.
I would think that because telephones still offer anonymity, people would be more willing to express their views. But I know I'm suspicious of my phone calls...maybe a lot of other people are too. Though I don't think polls are as suspect as Mercenary does.
Though I don't think polls are as suspect as Mercenary does.
Ok pick a poll that has original data which we can inspect and we can pick it apart. The point here is that you rarely if ever can see how or where the data was gathered. I spend part of my job reading original source research. You have to know how to find the weaknesses before you accept the data. And the validity would increase as multiple researchers are able to replicate the data you gathered in exactly the same manner. You rarely have access to how polling data is gathered, therefore the research cannot be properly evaluated.
Come on, you know polls have little to no statistical validity.
True - take the 2000 presidential election, for example.
True - take the 2000 presidential election, for example.
Elections and Polls are not the same, sorry to burst your bubble on that one. :handball:
Ok pick a poll that has original data which we can inspect and we can pick it apart. The point here is that you rarely if ever can see how or where the data was gathered. I spend part of my job reading original source research. You have to know how to find the weaknesses before you accept the data. And the validity would increase as multiple researchers are able to replicate the data you gathered in exactly the same manner. You rarely have access to how polling data is gathered, therefore the research cannot be properly evaluated.
I have experience in both social and physical science research and am familiar with poll development. I understand what you are saying. While I don't think that polls get it right all the time, the major ones (Gallup, Zogby, etc.) seem to have taken great pains to be more transparent in their polling. For example...from
this Gallup poll:
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 23-25, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
If you see more into it than I do, and would prefer raw data, that's all well and good. From what I'm seeing, this is a pretty solid poll...99% confidence would be nice, but 95% is usually a fair standard for statistical significance. And I don't have a reason to suspect that Gallup is trying to manipulate numbers for some sort of advantage or benefit.
I have experience in both social and physical science research and am familiar with poll development. I understand what you are saying. While I don't think that polls get it right all the time, the major ones (Gallup, Zogby, etc.) seem to have taken great pains to be more transparent in their polling. For example...from this Gallup poll:
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 23-25, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
If you see more into it than I do, and would prefer raw data, that's all well and good. From what I'm seeing, this is a pretty solid poll...99% confidence would be nice, but 95% is usually a fair standard for statistical significance. And I don't have a reason to suspect that Gallup is trying to manipulate numbers for some sort of advantage or benefit.
Good stuff. The only thing that I wonder, and I don't know this, are not poll organizations hired by groups to study data? Is there no potential for bias? The greatest weakness is not only in the regularly small sample size, for example I would hardly say that 1000 people with telephones represent and extrapolation to "most people think...", but the weakness in buried in the questions and how they are constructed.
:rolleyes:
Statistics, lies, and more statistics.
Such as "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crispy Toothpaste." They don't tell you they asked 10 dentists, none of whom had teeth.
:rolleyes:
Such as "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crispy Toothpaste." They don't tell you they asked 10 dentists, none of whom had teeth.
See my teeth?:D
Good stuff. The only thing that I wonder, and I don't know this, are not poll organizations hired by groups to study data? Is there no potential for bias? The greatest weakness is not only in the regularly small sample size, for example I would hardly say that 1000 people with telephones represent and extrapolation to "most people think...", but the weakness in buried in the questions and how they are constructed.
I don't know either...I would suspect so. The 5% should cover most bias, though they have the disclaimers. As far as extrapolation, I guess it would depend on how they figure out who they're going to call...I don't know how they're doing that.
I don't know either...I would suspect so. The 5% should cover most bias, though they have the disclaimers. As far as extrapolation, I guess it would depend on how they figure out who they're going to call...I don't know how they're doing that.
Agreed. And then the press picks up a result and runs with it. And then it is exploited by one group or another.:worried:
I think that's just the nature of people though..."God is on our side." Who likes being wrong? If you can find the smallest shred of evidence to prop yourself up on, whoohoo!
I have never been asked my opinion for a poll :(
(apart from on here, where I consider myself a minority anyway)
Are telephone pollsters exempt from the Do-Not-Call lists? I think they are.
My wife will always stay on the line and do a poll, even if it takes like 20 minutes. I'll sometimes do one, if it's around an election and I want to skew poll results towards liberal, but normally I won't do them.
I've answered a few poll questions that seemed to veer into product promotion...
Are telephone pollsters exempt from the Do-Not-Call lists? I think they are.
My wife will always stay on the line and do a poll, even if it takes like 20 minutes. I'll sometimes do one, if it's around an election and I want to skew poll results towards liberal, but normally I won't do them.
And there you have another source of a polls significant weakness. I say this because I have done the same thing.
I think I was called when I lived in Philly...I enjoyed doing it, and answered all the questions as truthfully as I could. The poll questions seemed sound...no leading that I could tell.
We were called 2 or 3 times for Gallup polls around the last election, and I get a call for a product survey every three months or so.
Political organizations and charities don't have to abide by the DoNotCall list (which we're on), and I'm pretty sure marketing surveys don't either since they're not directly trying to sell you their product.
I do quite a lot of polling in the approach to elections. One thing I have noticed is, that people are less unhappy at talking about their electoral preferences than they used to be (used to get a lot of people saying "It's a secret ballot!" and refusing to answer any questions) people seem more used to telephone polling generally over the last 10 years or so. In the last two years I have noticed a distinct difference in how likely people are to tell you they are voting for the BNP, often without a corresponding change in outcomes. So, where before very few people would admit to voting BNP unless they were hardcore neo-nazis, now quite average people will say they support the BNP. ........sorry....thread drift, my bad :P
So, where before very few people would admit to voting BNP unless they were hardcore neo-nazis, now quite average people will say they support the BNP.
:worried: That is so weird. Here I am secure in my multi-ethnic bubble, believing that Britain is a tolerant place. You know I have met people who want to abolish the welfare state, but I've never met a card carrying racist. Horrible to think they are out there and becoming more vocal :worried:
"These days you can't tell whose in cahoots 'cause now the KKK wears three-piece suits..."
Syc, that has a lot of resonance.
@ SG, Many of them wouldn't consider themselves racist; plenty of them aren't really racists. The BNP have done a fair to middling job of convincing people that they aren't really about race......they even tried to recruit a Sikh friend of mine. It's only when someone films them secretly at a rally Zeik Heiling about the place and talking about ridding the country of the 'ethnic cockroaches' who are polluting the white race that people are reminded who they really are.
[youtube]tiyJzWy3CDQ[/youtube]
[youtube]fPHnXrU5JzU[/youtube]
They discuss some poll results in there where Americans state that ... plus give you some ideas about how people feel about us. Notice how Atheists are "represented" on her panel.
It is
illegal for us to hold public office in over seventeen states.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
University of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism
From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Research Finds that Atheists are Most Despised, Most Distrusted Minority
Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
Lead researcher Penny Edgell said that she was surprised by this: "We thought that in the wake of 9/11, people would target Muslims. Frankly, we expected atheists to be a throwaway group." Nevertheless, the numbers are so extreme that she was led to conclude that they are "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years." It's not that bigotry and discrimination against Muslims is appropriate, but at least it's not hard to understand where such attitudes would come from.
Every group except atheists is being shown much greater tolerance and acceptance than 30 years ago. "Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized religious groups. It is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as the basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."
Some respondents associated atheism with illegal behavior, like drug use and prostitution: "that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Others saw atheists as "rampant materialists and cultural elitists" who "threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else."
Given the relatively low number of atheists in America, and the even lower number who are public about their atheism, Americans can't have come to their beliefs about atheists through personal experience and hard evidence about what atheists are really like. Furthermore, dislike of atheists doesn’t correlate very highly with dislike of gays, immigrants, or Muslims. This means that dislike of atheists isn't simply part of a larger dislike of people who are "different."
Why are atheists being singled out for special hatred and distrust? "What matters for public acceptance of atheists - and figures strongly into private acceptance as well - are beliefs about the appropriate relationship between church and state and about religion's role in underpinning society's moral order, as measured by our item on whether society's standards of right and wrong should be based on God's laws." It's curious that atheists would be singled out for special hatred on the basis of church/state separation which religious theists, including Christians, are usually on the forefront of fighting to preserve separation. It's rare to find a case filed by or supported by atheists which is not also supported by theists and Christians. In fact, I can't think of any off hand.
Although people may say that they consider atheists inferior because atheists don't believe that civil law should be defined according to some group's conception of what their god wants, I don't think that's the whole story. There are too many religious theists who also want civil law to be secular rather than religious. Instead, I think that a much better case can be made for the idea that atheists are being scapegoated the same way that Catholics and Jews once were: they are treated as social outsiders who create "moral and social disorder."
Atheists can't both be lower-class drug users or prostitutes and upper-class elitists and materialists. Instead, atheists are being saddled with the "sins" of American society generally. They are "a symbolic figure" that represent religious theists' "fears about ... trends in American life." Some of those fears involve "lower class" crimes like drug use; other fears involve "upper class" crimes like greed and elitism. Atheists are thus a "symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."
That's obviously not going to change, because as long as atheists remain atheists, then won't be theists and they won't be Christians. This means that they won't agree that any gods, much less the Christian god, can serve as the basis for moral solidarity or cultural membership in American society. Of course, neither can adherents of many other religions who either don't believe in gods or who don't believe in the Christian god. As America becomes more religiously pluralist, America is going to have to change and find something else to serve as the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership. Atheists should work to ensure that this is as secular as possible.
The thing they don't tell you is that they only asked 30 people the questions and then made this broad sweeping conclusion about Americans:
"The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear."
I wonder if they were asking exchange students and just didn't know it?
Move to the UK.
We don't have any problem with atheists. Phew - something I can say positively about my country!
(Except that you'll probably find most of continental Europe just the same)
Move to the UK.
We don't have any problem with atheists. Phew - something I can say positively about my country!
(Except that you'll probably find most of continental Europe just the same)
I love the UK, well except for your taxes.... and your food.:blush:
I love the UK, well except for your taxes.... and your food.:blush:
Taxes you're welcome to diss. But the food?! Whatwhat?
Have something to back this up and I'll discuss it with you.
Taxes you're welcome to diss. But the food?! Whatwhat?
Have something to back this up and I'll discuss it with you.
Ok, well the Bakewell Pudding was good, we went to the original place where they made it, upstairs in a building built in the 1600's or something. Oh, and I liked the Toad-in-a-hole, had that in a bar on a Sunday in London near the Westminster. Other than that....:neutral:
The thing they don't tell you is that they only asked 30 people the questions and then made this broad sweeping conclusion about Americans:
"The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It's not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear."
I wonder if they were asking exchange students and just didn't know it?
& the seventeen states in which it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office?
How do you speculate that away?
Nice how you ignored the films as well.
Where did you go that the food was grim?
You're not telling me that as a tourist I couldn't eat some bloody awful American food...? Because I'm telling you as a tourist I have.
It doesn't have to be traditional food - good lord if you're talking historical we'd be back eating out of date meat and highly spiced stales cakes...
Next (if any) time you come to the UK I'll take you for a fantastic meal. I might not be able to treat you to it, but it will be reasonably priced and very good.
& the seventeen states in which it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office?
How do you speculate that away?
Nice how you ignored the films as well.
Dude, I just opened them. See my PM reply before you jump down my neck and think that I am just another
asshole.:thepain:
THE ULTIMATE OUTSIDERS? NEW REPORT CASTS ATHEISTS AS "OTHERS" BEYOND MORALITY AND COMMUNITY IN AMERICA
Atheists have become the ultimate scapegoats in our culture ... but the news isn't all bad!
Web Posted: March 25, 2006
new study by the University of Minnesota Department of Sociology has found that Americans perceive Atheists as the group least likely to embrace common values and a shared vision of society.
Worse yet, Atheists are identified as the cohort other Americans do not want to see their offspring marrying!
These are just some of the result from a forthcoming article slated for publication in the American Sociological Review by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann. The research is part of the [COLOR="Red"]American Mosaic Project which monitors attitudes of the population in respect to minority groups. AANEWS obtained an advanced copy of the study that was based on a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households.[/COLOR]
Researchers concluded: "Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population according to Dr. Edgell, associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project.
Edgell said that Atheists "play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past" in that we provide "a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."
In addition, says the study, "The reaction to atheists has long been used as an index of political and social tolerance."
The U. of M. team acknowledged that general levels of tolerance and acceptance have been on the rise. Indeed, they cited studies like the Gallup polling organization that indicated growing willingness by voters to support Catholic, Jewish, Gay and other candidates identified with groups once considered out of the mainstream. Atheists, however, linger at the very bottom of this list, although there has been limited progress in this category since the mid-to-late 1950s.
Statistically, the picture is much the same regarding the perception of Atheists sharing a common vision with the rest of the American polity. When asked to identify the group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society," 39.6% of respondents listed Atheists, well ahead of Muslims (26.3%); Homosexuals (22.6%); and Jews (7.6%). Conservative Christians drew a negative response from 13.5% of those surveyed, slightly ahead of recent immigrants at 12.5%.
Other results found by the researchers illuminated the status of Atheists in respect to various groups.
¶ "Church attenders, conservative Protestants, and those reporting high religious saliency are less likely to approve of intermarriage with an atheist and more likely to say that atheists do not share their vision of American society..." In respect to the former, the survey presented respondents with the following statement: "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group."
Once again, Atheists were at the apex of this negative-image cohort at 47.6%, followed by Muslims (33.5%); African Americans (27.2%); Asian Americans (18.5%); Hispanics (18.5%); Jews (11.8%); conservative Christians (6.9%) and Whites at 2.3%.
¶ "Attitudes toward atheists are related to social location," observed the team. "White Americans, males, and those with a college degree are somewhat more accepting of atheists than are nonwhite Americans, females, or those with less formal education."
Respondents from the South and Midwest were less accepting of Atheists than those living on either coast. Curiously, this seems to reflect the political divide of "Red versus Blue" states from the last presidential election.
¶ Researchers also tried to discover any correlations between negative attitudes toward Atheists and similar views of homosexuals and Muslims. "None of these correlations is large," reported the researchers. "We believe this indicates that the boundary being draw vis-a-vis atheists is symbolic, a way of defining cultural membership in American life, and not the result of a simple irrational unwillingness to tolerate small out-groups."
A significant finding of the new study is that despite growing acceptance and tolerance of different groups within the religious community, Atheists are viewed as outsiders, "others," who do not share a common community vision. "What matters for public acceptance of atheists -- and figures strongly into private acceptance as well -- are beliefs about the appropriate relationship between church and state and about religion's role in underpinning society's moral order, as measured by our item on whether society's standards of right and wrong should be based on God's laws." The study found that conservative Protestants especially rejected the "possibility of a secular basis for a good society." This, more than anything else, may be the driving factor placing Atheists outside the cultural mainstream in the minds of nearly a majority of Americans.
The University of Minnesota study drew upon other research measuring the prevalence of explicit Atheism and nonbelief throughout American society. Fully 14% of Americans claim "no religious identity," and 7% told the General Social Survey that they do not believe in a God or are not sure.
"Respondents had various interpretations of what atheists are like and what the label means," investigators found in discussions following the initial interviews. Perceptions fell into two categories.
"Some people view atheists as problematic because they associate them with illegality, such as drug use and prostitution -- that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Presumably, this might be rooted in the claim that only religion can provide an authentic moral compass, and that without a deity (and the presumed punishment in an afterlife), people have little to lose by engaging in certain immoral, sinful behaviors.
"Others saw atheists as rampant materialists and cultural elitists that threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else." In both cases, atheists are perceived as "self interested individuals who are not concerned with a common good."
¶ The issue of elitism surfaces in the study findings, with respondents using the Atheist "as a symbolic figure to represent their fears about ... trends in American life." These included crime, rampant self-interest, and an "unaccountable elite."
"The atheist is invoked rhetorically to discuss the links, or tensions, among religion, morality, civic responsibility and patriotism."
As for elitism, Atheists appear to have replaced groups that in the past have been identified as constituting an over-influential clique subverting American values.
The researchers note that in the public imagination, Atheists are linked "with a kind of unaccountable elitism," a phenomenon that has purportedly surfaced in public debates. Indeed, Charlotte Allen, author of the 2004 book "The Twilight of Atheism," expressed fears that Atheism "may yet be experiencing a new dawn: a terrifying new alliance of money and power, of a kind even Marx could not have foreseen."
¶ The debate over Atheists, Atheists and the issue of religion in civil society has been fueled by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The Minnesota team devoted a section of their report to quotes from leading officials such as former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in public statements invoked religion as a guarantor of freedom and human dignity. The 2004 presidential campaign witnessed similar rhetoric.
The study underscored the role of Atheists as "symbolic" of angst permeating American culture. "Negative views about atheists are strong," noted the researchers, although "survey respondents were not, on the whole, referring to actual atheists they had encountered." Instead, the Atheist is a sort of boundary marker distinguishing members of a wider policy from "others," outsiders, those not sharing assumptions about morality and the role of religion. Religion is widely perceived as providing "habits of the heart," and a disposition which includes one in membership within a larger community. Americans "construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."
Other groups have suffered a similar fate over the year, including "Catholics, Jews, and Communists." Today, say the researchers, the Atheist plays this role.
There may be a crucial difference, however. "Our analysis shows that attitudes about atheists have not followed the same historical pattern as that for previously marginalized religious groups. It is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as the basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."
Finally, in all of this, there is a flicker of hope for Atheists. The Minnesota survey references an earlier Gallup Organization poll (listed as "Figure 1") measuring "Willingness to vote for Presidential candidates." Voter attitudes toward Catholics, Jews, African Americans, Atheists and Homosexuals were tabulated with displayed results from 1958 through 1999. Gallup conducted the survey as then-vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman was running on the Democratic Party ticket with Al Gore. Willingness to consider voting for a Jewish candidate had climbed from about 61% in 1958 to over 90% in 1999. There was similar progress for candidates of other religious or ethnic groups. Voters looked favorably on possible Mormon candidates (79%) as well as Roman Catholics and women.
Atheists were at the bottom of the cohort, however. Gallup research indicated that "close to half of Americans, 48%, (were) unwilling to support an atheist for president while 49% say they would."
The bad news may not be THAT bad, though. About 19% of respondents in 1958 expressed willingness to vote for a qualified Atheist candidate seeking public office. By 1978, that figure had climbed to 40%, rising approximately another 10% in the next 11 years. The only group making comparable dramatic headway in terms of public acceptance was African Americans. That cohort lingered below the 30% mark in 1958, but skyrocketed to over 90% in 1999.
American Atheists President Ellen Johnson said that while Atheists are the "others" in the current cultural and political milieu, the figures demonstrate the need for this segment to become more engaged. "We need to keep speaking out, organizing, running for public office," said Johnson. "Some might see this as an omen to retreat; it's really a call for action."
Where did you go that the food was grim?
You're not telling me that as a tourist I couldn't eat some bloody awful American food...? Because I'm telling you as a tourist I have.
It doesn't have to be traditional food - good lord if you're talking historical we'd be back eating out of date meat and highly spiced stales cakes...
Next (if any) time you come to the UK I'll take you for a fantastic meal. I might not be able to treat you to it, but it will be reasonably priced and very good.
Ok at the risk of continuing a hijack, we had some AWSOME curry. Hotest best damm food I had anywhere of that vein. Give me some time it will come to me slowly...
Dude, I just opened them. See my PM reply before you jump down my neck and think that I am just another asshole.:thepain:
Different videos, but thanks for the heads-up.
I love the UK, well except for your taxes.... and your food.:blush:
I'd like to hear about the sample size and the polling methodologies used to draw such country-wide, sweeping conclusions.
I'd like to hear about the sample size and the polling methodologies used to draw such country-wide, sweeping conclusions.
Personal conclusions by the newest
resident asshole, not selling a bill of goods to the populace for others to accept. ;)
(point taken)
Those two women in the video are the most ignorant people that sadly represent what many Americans think about Atheists and the rest of the world. The white women (Hunter?) is discriminating against Muslims by saying the are destroying Europe with their values while ironically, I find Islam a lot more peaceful than Christianity.
They keep saying we are a Christian nation. Do you really want the US to be labeled a Christian nation? We destory, steal, cheat, decieve, take advantage of, corrupt, and keep about half the world in poverty. Is that Christian values?
We are not, and never have been a Christian nation.
It is a long standing lie.
and keep about half the world in poverty.
How do we do that? Maybe we should just send them all of our money or move to their lands and they can move into our houses.:eyebrow:
Hey, I haven't yet called you an asshole. I haven't even been mean. And my "mean" can be withering, just ask anybody here. :rolleyes: I did notice that (the collective) you were quite active in my brief absence; terrific. And I did not and do not want to get into a pissing match with you. That's not why I'm here, and as much (not so much) as I speak "for the cellar", it's not why we're all here.
But, dayum, man. You're new here, y'know? You *just might* be all that and a bag of chips. But. You started off on the wrong foot. That might have been your good foot, but it's ... just not appropriate. Do you wear your crampons on the dance floor? It was kind of like that. And it's not even your dance floor (yet). You're so new. At least Flint has a year on you and I'm a pup compared to some of the methuselahs still posting.
And **all** we have to go on, really, are your posts. They were combative, not constructive. They were rude, not respectful. They were ignorant, not insightful. We responded to that. Maybe you are an asshole, maybe not. I reserve judgment; time and your posts will tell. If you stick around.
And if you do stick around, and I hope you do, you will learn that the cellar is the most stable, most genuine meritocracy you will ever be a part of. I guarantee it, or I will personally refund double your money back.
And I did not and do not want to get into a pissing match with you. That's not why I'm here, and as much (not so much) as I speak "for the cellar", it's not why we're all here..
Me neither. Never saw it that way. Just responding to the questions (often leading, which I would not allow them to do) posed, mostly in the political and current events, which is where you will find me mostly. I was looking for exchange, not a full frontal liberal assualt just because my views are different. But an exchange is not what I got. So whatever. I will stick around.
--snip--Just responding to the questions (often leading, which I would not allow them to do) posed, mostly in the political and current events, which is where you will find me mostly. --snip--.
Style point: You don't get to permit or deny the questions, leading or otherwise.
Syc, that has a lot of resonance.
It's from a Public Enemy song from 1991...it was around the time that David Duke became well-known. A great line...and it applies to many extremist groups these days.
Style point: You don't get to permit or deny the questions, leading or otherwise.
I have the freedom to answer what I desire and as I see fit. No one can control the questioner or the person answering.
How do we do that? Maybe we should just send them all of our money or move to their lands and they can move into our houses.:eyebrow:
Or we kept them in poverty by moving our companies over there, paying the citizens $0.50 and hour and allowing only the upper class to control the country. We rape them of
their natural resources,
their main source of income, and make sure
our companies get the profits. We don't invest money into their economy to help it grow, we control it for our benefit, and our benefit only. Attempts by them to create a nationalist or socialist government results in US intervention to overthrow the newly
elected leader and then followed by replacing him with a pro-western leader and sometimes even reinstating an oppressive monarch.
If we just stayed out of other countries affairs, don't try to control their economy, and invest to help
their economies grow, I guarantee that we would be the most popular superpower this world has ever, and will ever, see.
Or we kept them in poverty by moving our companies over there, paying the citizens $0.50 and hour and allowing only the upper class to control the country.
Ok, I am with you. We keep them out of poverty by not moving there and not paying them $0.50 per hour. We pay them nothing. That will keep them out of poverty. Good idea.
What don't you understand about helping their economies grow?
What don't you understand about helping their economies grow?
I understand. I just don't want to do it. I want
our economy to grow. If thiers grows when ours grows that is good for them. If not then I feel bad for them. I do not think we should exploit them. But it is unreasonable to think that any company is going to go to a country where the average worker makes $0.50 per hour and try to pay them $5.00 per hour. That is crazy. I don't want our companies to move out of the US, but we have created a situation where it is easy and more profitable for them to do so. How do you
make them not go?
[HTML]How do you make them not go?[/HTML]
Don't shop at wallmart.
You've got a computer, you've got Google, go to the extra trouble of finding American made stuff.
It will cost you more, you'll have to get along on six well made shirts instead of being in fashion with 24 pieces of crap. Your self esteem might be bruised by having to appear in public in last months fashion.
I know a single mother has to stretch the buck, yada, etc, blah. Oh look...I never saw that before, it's so cute and cheap......and I couldn't live without it.
Some things are not made here at all any more. 1- do you really need it? 2-do you really need that many?
That, my friend is how you make them not go, but it takes people who are willing to sacrifice for the good of others, for the good of the country.
And in case you haven't noticed, the whining motherfuckers all around you don't give a shit about anyone or anything that doesn't immediately affect them.
[HTML]How do you make them not go?[/HTML]
Don't shop at wallmart.
You've got a computer, you've got Google, go to the extra trouble of finding American made stuff.
It will cost you more, you'll have to get along on six well made shirts instead of being in fashion with 24 pieces of crap. Your self esteem might be bruised by having to appear in public in last months fashion.
I know a single mother has to stretch the buck, yada, etc, blah. Oh look...I never saw that before, it's so cute and cheap......and I couldn't live without it.
Some things are not made here at all any more. 1- do you really need it? 2-do you really need that many?
That, my friend is how you make them not go, but it takes people who are willing to sacrifice for the good of others, for the good of the country.
And in case you haven't noticed, the whining motherfuckers all around you don't give a shit about anyone or anything that doesn't immediately affect them.
I already do that, most of it anyway. I have 3 F-150's among some other stuff. There is no promise that any of it is made in America anymore. The world has become global. But if I don't shop at Walmart my neighbor may be out of a job, along with all of the other Associates. I just can't do that to my neighbor. But I do try to buy American when I can. So how come the big Corps have not come back or stopped leaving, cause you know I have been doing this for a long time?
WalMart is the anti-christ.
I have the freedom to answer what I desire and as I see fit. No one can control the questioner or the person answering.
By all means, please, be my guest. It's what make the world go around, around here.
Just responding to the questions (often leading, which I would not allow them to do) posed, mostly in the political and current events, which is where you will find me mostly.
Did you misspeak or did I misunderstand? Please clarify what you mean when you say you won't permit leading questions, and justify it, if you can.
WalMart is the anti-christ.
Right on, sister! Tell it!
Walmart isn't the devil, captialism is the devil. Walmart is just playing smart capitalism.
Telephone polls are some of the worst. All you did was sample people who have telephones.
I think the last poll that suffered from that error resulted in the Dewey Defeats Truman newspaper headline.
There are now more households with phones than without.
I've even been admitting a lot of homeless people with cellphones. I think they come into the hospital so they have a place to plug in their chargers.
WalMart is the anti-christ.
When someone other than the antichrist starts carrying adult diapers* for less than $15 a pack, let me know.
*they're for momWolf, not me. Really.
Damn, I was hot there for a sec.
captialism is the devil.
You're a college student, aren't ya? ;)
Ok, I am with you. We keep them out of poverty by not moving there and not paying them $0.50 per hour. We pay them nothing. That will keep them out of poverty. Good idea.
I agree, we should stay OUT of other nations and take care of our own, while enforcing our, quite liberal, immigration laws as they stand.
However, if we really do this; just see how long we remain popular.;)
Capitalism is the devil? Please, tell me what is better (that still rewards those who work harder, smarter and inventors... and I mean not stealing from those who save, work harder/more and smarter or those who buy land).
I agree, we should stay OUT of other nations and take care of our own, while enforcing our, quite liberal, immigration laws as they stand.
However, if we really do this; just see how long we remain popular.;)
Capitalism is the devil? Please, tell me what is better (that still rewards those who work harder, smarter and inventors... and I mean not stealing from those who save, work harder/more and smarter or those who buy land).
Capitalism is better, and it has worked very well for me. I was being facetious concerning his response. If you don't build a factory and employ the population then they are most certainly less well off than had you employed them, even a $1 per hour. You cannot and should not try to establish parallels between how we employ a union worker in the US to a person in a factory in Thailand IMHO.
Capitalism is the Devil, IMO, but there are worse things...better the Devil you know.
You're a college student, aren't ya? ;)
How did you guess....
Capitalism is the devil? Please, tell me what is better (that still rewards those who work harder, smarter and inventors... and I mean not stealing from those who save, work harder/more and smarter or those who buy land).
Leaving out the fact that evil is relative, just because something works doesn't mean it isn't evil. Capitalism encourages just about every evil we see right now and it brings out the worst in people. Do you think there would be a war in Iraq if it wasn't for capitalism? Do you think there would be massive immigration to America if it wasn't for capitalism?
Capitalism works, no one should deny that, but to think that capitalism doesn't create evil is just as foolish.
How did you guess....
That youthful optimism...capitalism evil...damn The Man! :D
Capitalism is supposed to pit competing evils against each other to promote good. i.e., the consumer picks the lesser of the available evils.
It doesn't always work.
It worked until the self-centered me,myself&I's came along.
How did you guess....
Leaving out the fact that evil is relative, just because something works doesn't mean it isn't evil. Capitalism encourages just about every evil we see right now and it brings out the worst in people. Do you think there would be a war in Iraq if it wasn't for capitalism? Do you think there would be massive immigration to America if it wasn't for capitalism?
Capitalism works, no one should deny that, but to think that capitalism doesn't create evil is just as foolish.
I don't believe in evil.
The middle east would be and will be a theocracy and at war without capitalism and the west, it is their hobby.
Capitalism is not relevant to war in the east, we are just playing in their sandbox (no pun intended, but pleased with it).
It worked until the self-centered me,myself&I's came along.
To whom are you referring? The robber barons?
Self-centeredness and selfishness shouldn't be a problem in a capitalist society (as far as the capitalism goes, other aspects of the society will suffer). What breaks capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power in small groups, eliminating the competition that is supposed to keep them honestish.
& the seventeen states in which it is illegal for an atheist to hold public office?
How do you speculate that away?
You've said that a lot.
Citation of the actual statutes of the states involved, please.
I'm pretty sure that such laws have already been declared unconstitutional, and whatever states still have them do so out of laziness and/or pigheadedness.
Just like there are benevolent dictatorships, there should be benevolent capitalism. Unbridled capitalism gets toxic waste in your water and hot and cold running sewage from your faucet, among other evils. A successful capitalism would increase the middle class and reduce the wealth gap.
You've said that a lot.
Citation of the actual statutes of the states involved, please.
Here, I will hold your hand...
ALABAMA
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama
ALASKA
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.
ARIZONA
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.
ARKANSAS
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to our selves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
CALIFORNIA
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
COLORADO
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".
CONNECTICUT
The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.
DELAWARE
Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.
FLORIDA
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
GEORGIA
To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
HAWAII
We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono."
(The translation of the motto is “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”)
IDAHO
We, the people of the state of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.
ILLINOIS
We, the People of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors - in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
INDIANA
TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.
IOWA
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:
KANSAS
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western boundary of the state of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence running west on said parallel to the twenty-fifth meridian of longitude west from Washington; thence north on said meridian to the fortieth parallel of north latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the state of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said state to the place of beginning.
KENTUCKY
We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
LOUISIANA
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
MAINE
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.
MARYLAND
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:
MASSACHUSETTES
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
MICHIGAN
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
MINNESOTA
We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
MISSISSIPPI
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking his blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this constitution.
MISSOURI
We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.
MONTANA
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.
NEBRASKA
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.
NEVADA
We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(Article V of their Bill of Rights:)
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his pers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
NEW JERSEY
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
NEW MEXICO
We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
NEW YORK
We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.
NORTH CAROLINA
We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.
NORTH DAKOTA
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.
OHIO
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
OKLAHOMA
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
OREGON
(Article I, Section 2 of their Bill of Rights:)
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
PENNSYLVANIA
WE,the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty,and humbly invoking His guidance,do ordain and establish this Constitution.
RHODE ISLAND
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.
SOUTH CAROLINA
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.
SOUTH DAKOTA
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.
TENNESSEE
(Article I, Section 3:)
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
TEXAS
Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
UTAH
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION
VERMONT
(Chapter 1, Article 3:)
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.
VIRGINIA
We, therefore, the people of Virginia, so assembled in convention through our representatives, with gratitude to God, for His past favors, and invoking His blessings upon the result of our deliberations, do ordain and establish the following revised and amended Constitution for the government of the Commonwealth:
WASHINGTON
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
WEST VIRGINIA
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of west Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the State of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.
WISCONSIN
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution.
WYOMING
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Outlawing Unbelief
by Tom Flynn
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 20, Number 1.
It's often forgotten, but seven states of the Union still define atheists, secular humanists, and other freethinkers as second-class citizens. The state constitutions of Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas retain historic provisions that ban unbelievers-and in some cases, minority religionists as well-from holding public office, bearing witness in court, or both. The Pennsylvania and Texas constitutions go further yet, declaring their debt to "Almighty God" in their preambles.
Typical language includes Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution (engagingly titled "No Atheist shall hold a civil office"): "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Article XIX, Sec. 1, of the Arkansas constitution is even more exclusionary: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 37 of Maryland's constitution provides that "no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God" (emphasis added).
Article I, Sec. 4, of Pennsylvania's constitution is more insidious: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth." This dual requirement of belief in a deity and in a retributive afterlife could block adherents of numerous lifestances, even some Christians. A liberal Protestant who believes in God but not in a literal afterlife, a Buddhist who believes in karma but not in a deity, or an Orthodox Jew who believes in God and an afterlife but not in reward or punishment after death-all could be barred from public office as readily as any secular humanist if this clause were enforced.
Ten more have language that can be interpreted to exclude unbelievers but are not specific laws. There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.
I don't believe in evil.
I know, good and evil are relative but I was talking about evil in our society's morals and ethical code. To the Western ethical code, capitalism is evil.
The middle east would be and will be a theocracy and at war without capitalism and the west, it is their hobby.
Capitalism is not relevant to war in the east, we are just playing in their sandbox (no pun intended, but pleased with it).
Can you please explain further, I am not following?
Except for world order, I can't think of a way that doesn't resort to capitalism or an aftereffect of capitalism.
No... I really think it is OT for this thread and am not up to it today.
Please start a middle-east thread.
There is very little capitalism in the middle-east, though, mostly theocracy.
www.ask.comWe the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.
That sounds like some role-playing shit, but it's also pretty bitchin'.
To whom are you referring? The robber barons?
Self-centeredness and selfishness shouldn't be a problem in a capitalist society (as far as the capitalism goes, other aspects of the society will suffer). What breaks capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power in small groups, eliminating the competition that is supposed to keep them honestish.
No, not the Barons, they are doing what they always did, albeit on a much larger scale. Greed without borders, anyone?
I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.
I'm pretty sure that such laws have already been declared unconstitutional, and whatever states still have them do so out of laziness and/or pigheadedness.
Worse than that, it's one assholes interpretation of what they mean. Look at PA.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.
I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.
Ah, that's true.
There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.
In many cases, it's BYOB.
Here, I will hold your hand...
You're holding nothing but your dick. I don't see one statute backing your claim, not one.
The Federal Constitution does not say there shall be a separation of Church and State. That's a modern shorthand for the actual wording which you're taking literally.
The language of all those citations is exactly what I'd expect from religious men in that era. And they were you know, they were religious men because the Federal Constitution guaranteed they could be, any religion they wanted and the Feds couldn't tell them they weren't the right religion or deny them office because of it. And most certainly didn't deny them office for lack of it, although if it was elected office, they probably couldn't get the votes.
That said, I had heard Delaware required belief in God to hold State office, but I don't know for sure.
Worse than that, it's one assholes interpretation of what they mean. Look at PA.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.
Who can't be disqualified on account of religious sentiments? People who acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.
Who can? Everyone else.
It does explicitly leave atheists open to disqualification, though I don't think it actually disqualifies them. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure whether the exclusionary style of the sentence has such implications.
And here's a
better list than the last one.
No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.
These phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes any applicable statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses. This was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, as described below.
Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.
There is not a state that I know of that does not swear in officials without a Bible.
Keith Ellison in Minnesota swore in with the Qur’an
I would like to see someone wear in on an economics’ 1001 textbook...
Science encyclopedia?
No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.
Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.
You sure can't:
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
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.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate, many of whom were founding fathers, in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953
None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.
The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era
James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly
Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." -Thomas Paine
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Keith Ellison in Minnesota swore in with the Qur’an
I would like to see someone wear in on an economics’ 1001 textbook...
;)
No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, [COLOR=royalblue]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true.
Don't forget the states preceded the "United States" and were formed by religious people who wrote the rules for themselves and their peers. you can't change history.
Two versions:
"No person
who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, [COLOR=royalblue]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
"No person shall, [COLOR=royalblue]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
As long as you
acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, you can't be disqualified on religious grounds. If you don't, you can.
And yes, I know this is moot, thanks to the Supreme Court, as I said earlier.
It's not like I think a state would use these laws to oust a candidtate... man, I really don't want to go there in my mind.
It is the idea that they still exist and how important things like anti-sodomy laws are to people.
The other issue is that, in 90% of the nation, you cannot obtain office... cannot represent the public in an official capacity (none of these jobs have shit to do with religion) without espousing a belief in something they have never seen one iota of evidence for. (I know this because I have a close relative in a high office who never went to church or mentioned god who now has to openly prays every day of her life and says crap like "co-pilot"... it is disgusting)
Europe is laughing at us... I know... I see them do it all the time on other channels.
We deserve it. We are tribesmen crying to the thunder.
God dammit. How long will it take people to realize that religion has nothing to do with morals.
As soon as they decide to think for themselves.
Two versions:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, [COLOR=royalblue]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
"No person shall, [COLOR=royalblue]on account of his religious sentiments,[/COLOR] be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth."
As long as you acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, you can't be disqualified on religious grounds. If you don't, you can.
And yes, I know this is moot, thanks to the Supreme Court, as I said earlier.
Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.
I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.
I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.
If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.
You're holding nothing but your dick. I don't see one statute backing your claim, not one.
Oh! Edwardo, you're so forceful when you're angry!
[YOUTUBE]p86BPM1GV8M[/YOUTUBE]
Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.
I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.
I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.
If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.
But they did not think about/care about blue laws, cabbies refusing to take fares because they had beer in their grocery bags, and the possibility that we could exclude non-believers from office, which we
can do right now in many states.
Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.
I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.
I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.
If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.
It's not sneaky. It's deliberate. They were saying that any religion is fine as long as recognizes God and heaven. It's probably based on the idea that morals come from fear of punishment.
Your analogy fails because you used the same word in both places. Someone who "acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments" is not identical to someone with "religious sentiments".
...
and the possibility that we could exclude non-believers from office, which we can do right now in many states.
Here, you're wrong (on a legal level). None of these laws are enforceable, as confirmed by the SCOTUS.
Of course, on a societal level, non-believers certainly can be excluded by the electorate.
Bah, you're weaseling like a lawyer.
I am a independent cab driver, ok?
I say, "No black person, because they are black, will be barred from my cab.
I have made no statement about anyone else but blacks, and you can weasel away, but I have not implied a damn thing about anyone.
If I were writing a constitution I would do the same. Besides why should they try to be sneaky? They were making the rules, they could do anything they wanted. Their concern, as was the framers of the federal constitution, that people would be discriminated for their religion, not lack of it.
Bruce, I have to agree with HM. The analogy would be more "No black US citizen will be barred from my cab". Leaves you open to bar black Norwegians from your cab.
[YOUTUBE]zOJPprykkrI[/YOUTUBE]
I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.
Bruce, I have to agree with HM. The analogy would be more "No black US citizen will be barred from my cab". Leaves you open to bar black Norwegians from your cab.
It doesn't say anything of the sort though does it? It says what it says, no more no less.
Well so does the PA law, it says religious people will not be discriminated against for public office, no more no less.
That's the trouble with this fucking country, weasels trying to twist things around to pull some bullshit, to fuck decent people for their own profit.
All the lawyers and politicians should become soap.
I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.
I wish you would get that sand out of your vagina.
It doesn't say anything of the sort though does it? It says what it says, no more no less.
And what it says is that only a certain type of religious sentiment is constitutionally protected from religious disqualification.
I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
That's why UT created that area.
Wtf bruce? Does that apply to everyone, for every video?
Are you speaking as a moderator here, or are you just being an asshole to rage?
You
are a grumpy fuck lately...
Tell you what Jinx, you're welcome to the fucking job. Just use LJ's moderator account and have at it.
Have at what? I don't see anything that needs to be done here.
Ok, no problem. Can we back up to the questions I asked now?
LJ's "moderator account" only allows him the ability to moderate threads and posts in his message section... which no longer exists.
Actual Cellar moderators are given "super moderator" accounts which permit them moderation of not only message areas but users and some other administrative stuff.
My understanding is that pictures and videos slow the loading and increase band width considerably.
Sticking in a picture or video occasionally can greatly enhance a thread, but loading a thread that is not specifically designated as a thread that will have a number of pictures/videos, doesn't allow people with slow connections a choice to skip them. It lures them into getting hung up in the loading process which ties them up and slows the Cellar down.
Of course self centered elitists wouldn't give a shit, but I do and will continue to do so unless UT says I'm misinformed about the ramifications of picture/video loading. That's always a possibility, me being a distinctly non-geek.
I don't know what it's like for people with slow connections!
Video doesn't load unless you click it as far as I can tell, it's just like a picture until you do. And I didn't realize we were limiting pictures and videos to allow for the slowest common denominator. Were you planning to make a general announcement or just bark at people individually, starting with your personal favoirites?
And what the fuck does LJ, his account, or his section have to do with anything I've posted Bruce?
A video only starts loading (other than the screenshot) when you click "play".
Were you planning to make a general announcement or just bark at people individually, starting with your personal favoirites?
I wish you would put the videos where they belong, instead of making it longer for everyone to open these threads.
If you think that's barking you've led a very sheltered life.
And what the fuck does LJ, his account, or his section have to do with anything I've posted Bruce?
I said if you wanted the job you could fucking well have it and use LJ account to do it. I think that's a reasonable reply to you attacking me and calling me names.
Bruce I'm sorry I attacked you and called you names and made your pussy hurt, but I do think you've been a grumpy fuck lately. Whatever, I'm done here, as long as we can clarify that posters can include pictures or videos in their posts, whether they're in a designated thread or not. Eh?
I like to attach pics and videos, I like it when other people do too. It never occurred to me that only self centered elitists do this, and everyone else thinks we're being rude.
Well then since you speak for everyone I guess that makes it so.
Both of you, stop acting like fuckin' high schoolers.
Since nobody's making a declaration on this, I will.
Pictures and videos are fine, in moderation - I.E. thread bombs, small illustrations of a point, etc - and nothing too huge.
How does that sound?
I hope everyone had a great time celebrating the sex holiday the christians stole from the pagans since they could not get anyone to come to their spring celebrations.
Both of you, stop acting like fuckin' high schoolers.
Since nobody's making a declaration on this, I will.
Pictures and videos are fine, in moderation - I.E. thread bombs, small illustrations of a point, etc - and nothing too huge.
How does that sound?
Sounds like you think somebody actually gives a shit what you think.
I don't believe the majority of that poll...sounds way too PC. I'm not above giving people credit where credit is due, but 92% would elect a Jew? 88% a woman? 72% a Mormon? Bullshit.
In California they call this the Bradley effect, after a very popular African American politician who ran for office, whose poll numbers were much higher going in to the election than the numbers he actually got. A lot of people will
say that they're going to vote for a minority candidate, but can't actually bring themselves to. Most racists are either unconscious of their racism or deeply secretive about it.
Lots of inside pics of $25 mil flushed down the toilet.
One great pic of a sign that says the dinos with all the sharp, pointy, meat-eating teeth, were vegetarians until Adam and Eve messed-up LOL!!!!
SO much better than feeding the hungry!
This is the one where a plane flew over carrying the banner "Thou Shall Not Lie" right?
The fifth picture in the slideshow shows a poster that includes a previous IOTD image, the mixed-race couple with one black and one white twin. (The text is blurry, but I can make out "Biological Differences are Superficial" and "We came from one woman/We came from one man.")
$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Cool. I hear that a museum for tooth fairys, easter bunnys and hob goblins is in the works. It is supposed to rival the anti-evolution museums historical and scientific accuracy.
I was channel surfing and ran across a guy in some soft of quasi-safari outfit with a nautilus shell talking to a TV host. He gave an interesting (and probably accurate) description of the life of a nautilus, a very cool critter.
Then he used it to justify creationism, and the 'scientist' was from the staff of the creation museum. The juxtaposition of science and pseudo-science gave me mental cramps for a moment, sort of like a mental version of 'the bends'.
They really should label cable channels better.
http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html
Early in the museum, the visitor is given advice on the proper mind frame to have for your visit: “Don’t think, just listen and believe”.
Telling kids "don't" FUCKING "think"?!!!!
Burn it to the ground... that is
all it is worth... a place to roast marshmallows.
This religion is a
scam and nothing more.
Prove me wrong, seriously, prove it.
"Outrageous claims call for outrageous evidence."
The fifth picture in the slideshow shows a poster that includes a previous IOTD image, the mixed-race couple with one black and one white twin. (The text is blurry, but I can make out "Biological Differences are Superficial" and "We came from one woman/We came from one man.")
Crikey - I wonder if they agreed to have their picture used as an example of creationism?
Interesting they use that picture though. When slavery was justified using the Bible because blacks were descended from Ham's cursed son to be a hewer of wood after looking on the old man in his drunkenness. And some fundamental churches still have frown on interracial marriage.
Perhaps I should see this as a step forward.
Jesus and Paul both discussed a slave's duty to serve their Christian masters better because they are better people.
Those quotes were used as well to justify slavery. Gotta' love it.
[youtube]5mPPnN1c0jk[/youtube]
I invite everyone to view the full collection of photos taken at the creation "museum".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1c0star/sets/72157600335006271/
These images were not taken by me. It was a mistake by me to refer to the couple as atheists in the video. By their own admission they simple are two people who do not believe in creationism.
I always put museum in quotes as this building makes a mockery of the fine history of science and art institutions. The slides I have selected show clear evidence that creationists believe in and promote the idea of Super Evolution. Here I present very simple evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such rapid change is completely impossible and goes against every single piece of data collected over the past century and a half.
This "museum" goes beyond teaching super evolution. The real goal is to convince the visitor that science in general does not work. And of course this makes sense. How else can one reconcile the ideas offered by creationists with the millions of facts collected by scientists. In short, creationists want people to accept what they say, and not think for themselves. Because even the most marginal effort of free thought will unmask their ideas as completely ludicrous.
This "museum" makes it clear that creationists want our society to fall back into the dark ages. Ask yourself this: Where have all of our medical breakthroughs come from? Where have our communications and transportation technologies come from? The scientific method, logic, and human reason are the backbone of modern civilization. Creationists want us to abandon them for blind acceptance. Yet they are more than willing to use these technologies to advance their ignorance. And yes that does make them hypocrites.
The slide at 4:33 should read "most animals are diploid" as the vast majority are but a few specie are in fact haploid.
To download this video go to:
http://files-upload.com/files/502381/The%20Creation%20Museum%20Teaches%20Super%20Evolution.wmv
or
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1172854PXpmHQgW