Cipher Girl

ManM you said:
Actually this is a pet peeve of mine. If one wants to just learn enough for a job then one should attend a trade school or a technical school. Colleges should should do much more that teach thier students the bare skills to enter the job market. Colleges should teach those students the origional 3Rs (Reading, Reason, and Rhetoric) and not the dumbed down version (readin, writin, and 'rithmetic).

College students ideally should read all viewpoints, reason out their agreement or opposition, and eloquently argue their position. It would be even better if this was taught in high school. But I can see a lot of parents with ill-thought out philosophies agast at the thought of poor little Johnny daring to question what he's been brought up with.

[Edited to fix a quote mark.]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

ex-preacher

No, that's what a trade school is for. Have you ever been to a real college?

<strong> How incredibly cynical! I suppose your position is that everyone is an idiot, so you want to indoctrinate before someone else does. How sad.


<strong> I'm not sure what you mean by a "say in government." If churches paid taxes like a business, I would certainly allow them to participate in the political process like any business. Let's face it, churches already have ways of letting their members know the "right" way to vote. Is there a single Southern Baptist who thinks his pastor leans to the Democratic Party?

<strong> Democratic dialog in the ecumenical councils? You must be joking! No one elected the bishops. Various areas were not represented at all (the West was especially unrepresented). The council decisions were reached through political deals and under heavy pressure from the emperor. And do you really think anyone changed their mind at these councils? The losers were rarely convinced. That's why so many splits ocurred after each council.

ManM

Corwin,
If the church does not pay taxes it has no official say in the government.

Taxes are not the natural state of the world. If you consider freedom from the government to be a 'break' then yes, I suppose you could say they are given a break.

So what will it be, do you still support taxing the churches? If so, would you grant them representation?

Wyz_sub10,
Is evolution a theory or is it evidence?

Obviously so. I was just trying to use a cute example to illustrate a problem with placing evolution in the same bin as genetics, physics, and other sciences. What experiment can be used to falsify evolution? Actually, I'd love to talk about this more in depth in the evolution forum, so that is where I will be heading after I finish my stint here in the C/S forum. I'm actually agnostic about the YEC vs. evolution debate, and would love to know more about it. I personally think that talk about origins should fall under the category of philosophy, not science.

Kind Bud,
According to you guys, the AFA is dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. They want their viewpoints spread to the exclusion of others. They use whatever means they can to achieve their goals. If you believe something is right, don't you try to propagate it? Now as I've said before, people (especially college students) don't think much and are ripe for propaganda and peer pressure. As such, college is a primary battlefield for ideological warfare.

But this does concern them. They believe homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle. We all fight for what we think is right. They are doing the same.

Education should teach people the skills they need to lead a productive life. People who aren't pushing the wagon are only making it harder on the rest of us.

Buffman,
For the record, I graduated with honors from Georgia Tech with a BSEE. I was 3 credit hours short of a minor in the philosophy of science and technology. Dr. Finkelstein gave a presentation to the GT philosophical society on his theories and correlated them with the ideas of Heraclitus. I brought him up because he informed us just how harsh scientists can be. I think he broke what was the last straw holding up my faith in science.

I look at this as a competition between speculations.

And this is what Dr. Finkelstein made me realize is not the case. I came to the realization that scientists were subject to the same passions as everyone else. They too have agendas and motives.

But that is exactly what we would expect when proposing that something is transcendent. We are physical beings living in a physical world. You cannot expect the transcendent to be brought to you on a platter.

They are just not creative with their hypothesis. That is all.

Ditto. As I've said, I think I'll be heading on up to those other forums after I lose my patience in here.

ex-preacher,
Yes.

No, people are not idiots. The majority of them just do not really critically think through things and they take whatever they are given. That makes them intellectually lazy, not stupid.

And you consider this to be strengthening the wall between church and state? I certainly don't want churches involved in politics, and I don't think anyone else here does either.

Regarding the ecumenical councils, I think we've been round this table before. They are a clear example of religious disputes being resolved without wars, metaphysical 2x4s, or governmental changes. They used rhetoric to support their points, exactly like we are all doing right now.

Buffman

ManM

Thank you for the mini bio. My eldest son holds a BSEE degree from RPI. That may be one reason why I suspected that you had little formal education in the natural sciences. You present thoughts much as he does.

I think he broke what was the last straw holding up my faith in science.

How interesting! Perhaps you started your education with some inappropriate conditioned beliefs about the definition of "faith." I have never viewed science as a religion that requires faith beliefs in order to reveal the right or wrong way to repair a broken electrical line or a ruptured artery. However, I do view the Scientific Method as a means to a more accurate and successful repair of either. Perhaps the very first time someone attempted to successfully mend the broken wire or the ruptured artery, it was "a competition between speculations." It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Emergency Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel didn't do a great deal of praying during some of their moments of "competition between speculations." However, if they are experienced with the specific fusing-firing mechanism...there is no requirement for any competition or speculation. Why do you suppose that comes to be the case for them and not for people like us? Could the people who support the Theory of Evolution, or Church-State separation, have knowledge and experiences we don't? So what happens when some folks come along who claim to have knowledge and experiences that point to a different method of repairing the electrical wire, the artery or defusing the bomb? When they only are risking their own lives and reputations, what harm is there in allowing them to demonstrate their approach? However, when repairing a burst artery, if their method fails, they only risk the life of someone else. Additionally, in that latter instance, both sides in the "competition between speculations" are risking the life of the patient the longer they stand around arguing over which of the speculations is the most accurate one that should be applied to the given circumstances. By the application of the Scientific Method to natural world issues, we minimize faith and maximize fact.

And this is what Dr. Finkelstein made me realize is not the case. I came to the realization that scientists were subject to the same passions as everyone else. They too have agendas and motives.

You have just presented a wonderful argument for a Liberal Arts education before any specialization period. Please forgive me smiling over your seeming abreaction to this sudden enlightenment about "all" humans. Evidently you really did view the people of science as the high priests of the scientific gospel. Little wonder that you fell so far and so hard when Prof. Finkelstein burst your faith belief bubble. Perhaps things would have turned out differently for you if you had gotten those last three credit hours for a minor in the philosophy of science and technology.

Ditto. As I've said, I think I'll be heading on up to those other forums after I lose my patience in here.

How well I can appreciate those sentiments. I hope your trip is an informative one. Thank you for remaining as calm and civil as you have even though we can only agree to disagree.

MzNeko

Well, people keep raising this point and it keeps not getting through, so I might as well take a crack at it... (inhales)

The point of the play is NOT "Being gay is a-okay", the POINT is that a young man was BRUTALLY BEATEN TO DEATH for being gay, and maybe, just maybe, THAT was wrong...

Got it now, ManM?

What if he hadn't been gay? What if he'd been beaten to death for having engaged in premarital sex? How about stealing? Lying? Being disrespectful to his parents? (all things that most of the groups who think homosexuality is wrong would also think are wrong)

Would the AFA make as much of a fuss about a play written about someone being beaten to death for any of those things?

Somehow I doubt it.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: MzNeko ]</p>

brighid

I wonder what sort of fuss AFA would make if a play was made about a Christian misionary being executed by a bunch of Muslims for illegally teaching Christianity in their country, against their faith and what they believe is right?

Oh, that's right they wouldn't make a fuss. They would declare the sinning, illegal piece of crap preaching Christianity to Muslims as a Martyr ...



Can you see the hypocrisy now? And just because Christians believe homosexuality is immoral does not actually make it IMMORAL! For billions of men, women and children in this world it is immoral and punishable by death to believe in the Jesus as anything other then a prophet. Should we sit silently by and not condemn those who kill "sinning" Christians? How about anyone who kills a sinner who hasn't harmed another person, but who simply happens to be different?

The AFA doesn't give a shit about the children, or college students. They actually believe that their is a "liberal intellectual" conspiracy to convert everyone to homosexuality. What a bunch of LOONS!

Brighid

Oresta

Originally posted by ManM:
Panties in a wad? The AFA couldn't be happier with what the Godless, secular, taxpayer-supported institution is doing. These evangalist crusaders will huff and puff and trumpet forth their self-righteous outrage , and then -- having adequately stirred up their constituency -- go forth to conduct another successful fund-raising campaign.

Stephen Maturin

Exactamundo. In the end, the AFA is all about getting the faithful to empty their wallets.

ManM

MzNeko,
I've already responded to that point. If the goal is to teach college students not to beat people to death, why use a controversial play? Surely there is other material out there which preaches the "don't beat people to death" message.

brighid,
Is this paranoia, speculation, or actually what they have done in the past?

We should condemn killing, period. Why offend people by using a particular play to do so when other options are available?

Oresta and Stephen Maturin,
Or they might honestly be concerned about the issues they oppose. Demonizing your opponent is not conducive to understanding.

Autonemesis

Because Matt was an actual person and his tragic story actually happened, and if someone is offended that a gay man was brutally murdered, and someone wrote a play about it, FUCK THEM. How about that?

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>