Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

[_Fortigurn]

EAllusion:

I really, really recommend at this point that you join me in backing away towards the door, nodding and smiling. Once outside, run like hell.

This is not a troll ...

I cannot understand this response to reasoned, rational questions. Certain quite unreasonable statements have been made in this thread, and it is very unlikely that their authors can find any support for them, and I suppose that's a very good reason to leave. But personal insults, abuse, and false accusations of trolling are incomprehensible. Is this is a taboo subject in the US, or on this forum?

[_The Nehor]

Comments such as this remind me that this forum is largely populated by citizens of the US. In a similar discussion on an extremely large Australian forum (just over 96,000 members), when I made this same proposal it was understood as completely serious (which it was), and was met with universal enthusiasm. Intelligent discussion ensued. But in Australia we have no argument over the separation of the church and state, which is very well defined in our country and receives almost complete all religious and secular citizens. You're actually allowed to talk about issues such as this in Australia without people talking about how they would consider killing you if the hypothetical situation became real.

You discuss disenfranchising people and it receives universal approval and you think this is a good thing? I'm glad you're so civilized. I propose we set up internment/reeducation camps for Jehovah's Witnesses, Gays, obese women, and anyone who watches soap operas. Here's hoping for universal approval.

I think a society that can seriously discuss that level of discrimination without outrage or anger is sick.

[_Fortigurn]

You discuss disenfranchising people and it receives universal approval and you think this is a good thing?

Yes I do. Disenfranchising a certain group of people, in a certain context, for a certain reason. There's a whole world out here which doesn't think the same way as you guys do in the US. And the amazing fact is, they just might be right.

I'm glad you're so civilized. I propose we set up internment/reeducation camps for Jehovah's Witnesses, Gays, obese women, and anyone who watches soap operas. Here's hoping for universal approval.

This is an appeal to the argumentative fallacy of the 'slippery slope'. It doesn't actually address the issue. I know you're capable of addressing the issue, and I know that you're capable of doing so intelligently without personal rancor or abuse (I've seen your posts), and I was actually looking forward to a rational discussion of the topic with you. If it's not to be, it's not to be, but the choice is yours.

I think a society that can seriously discuss that level of discrimination without outrage or anger is sick.

Every society practices a range of politically sponsored discrimination. Your own country practices discrimination of political enfranchisement, as you well know. So it's not about discrimination, it's just about where you draw the lines.

By the way, capital punishment in Australia was outlawed more than 20 years ago. Our society views it as savage, barbaric, and primitive. We think a society that can seriously discuss that kind of punishment without outrage or anger is sick. Takes all kinds, doesn't it?

[_The Nehor]

Nope, sorry, I can't discuss someone wanting me and everyone like me being politically disenfranchised at the whim of others without personal rancor or abuse.

[_EAllusion]

Not only have I said no such thing, I don't believe any such thing. On the contrary, such an idea has been implied by others (yourself included).

Clearly you do. You took the fact that some religious people oppose the Iraq war as evidence that the religious do not have near total control of the government. This requires one to presume that it is the position of "religious people" to oppose the Iraq war in order for the inference to make sense. This, of course, is false. The war is supported and opposed by the religious alike, both by elected representatives and by the general population.

Yes, I do think the religious can be counted on to be a near bloc vote when the issue is whether we should strip the religious of their basic political rights.

Your point? Are you presenting this as evidence for the claim that 80% of US citizens are religious, and that religious people have 'almost total control' over the government and military? Did you see my request for relevant scholarly literature? That was a serious request.

I'm not going to make the effort when I feel you are yanking our chains (among other reasons).

[_Moniker]

I've been following the disenfranchisement conversation and don't want to get embroiled in it. Just a few points.

Many of those that were adamant about slavery being outlawed in America and in the UK (and the Quakers were successful in the UK) were doing so because of their religious beliefs. Many that marched and petitioned the government for civil rights legislation drew upon religious beliefs and used these beliefs to appeal to others that they should live their faith. When women sought the right of suffrage they, too, at times drew upon their religious heritage and used this as an appeal. Of course those that were opposed used the same source -- yet, they came to differing conclusions.

The beauty of religion in America is that there is no general consensus and the more denominations and sects we actually have the healthier the process is.

This comment struck me as funny, immediately:

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

This was the sentiment of men that wanted women to get back in the kitchen where they belonged and those uppity blacks to remember their place.

Thank "God" I live in a country where the dissenting voice can be heard and can create great tidal waves of change even when being unpopular!

Look at these Christian women that shouldn't have participated in the political process in Australia according to Fortigun:

These women should have stayed in the kitchen 'cause they were Christians?!

[_Fortigurn]

Nope, sorry, I can't discuss someone wanting me and everyone like me being politically disenfranchised at the whim of others without personal rancor or abuse.

That's a shame. But at least you're honest about it.

[_Fortigurn]

I've been following the disenfranchisement conversation and don't want to get embroiled in it. Just a few points.

Many of those that were adamant about slavery being outlawed in America and in the UK (and the Quakers were successful in the UK) were doing so because of their religious beliefs. Many that marched and petitioned the government for civil rights legislation drew upon religious beliefs and used these beliefs to appeal to others that they should live their faith. When women sought the right of suffrage they, too, at times drew upon their religious heritage and used this as an appeal. Of course those that were opposed used the same source -- yet, they came to differing conclusions.

You don't need to be politically active to effect political change. The Quakers are an excellent example of this. I believe that religious people can effect social and political change outside the political machinery, and that they are best doing so.

The beauty of religion in America is that there is no general consensus and the more denominations and sects we actually have the healthier the process is.

Do you believe that 80% of the people in America are religious, and that the religious have 'almost total control over the government and military'?

Thank "God" I live in a country where the dissenting voice can be heard and can create great tidal waves of change even when being unpopular!

I'm grateful that the same privilege exists in Australia. Of course, this does not require involvement in the political process.

Look at these Christian women that shouldn't have participated in the political process in Australia according to Fortigun:

Why single out 'these Christian women'?

These women should have stayed in the kitchen 'cause they were Christians?!

Not at all. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I have said.

[_Fortigurn]

Not only have I said no such thing, I don't believe any such thing. On the contrary, such an idea has been implied by others (yourself included).

Clearly you do. You took the fact that some religious people oppose the Iraq war as evidence that the religious do not have near total control of the government.

Yes that's correct. Note that if some religious people oppose the Iraq war, this implies that other religious people do not oppose the Iraq war, contradicting completely the idea that all religious people are part of some kind of 'hive mind' and share the same position.

This requires one to presume that it is the position of "religious people" to oppose the Iraq war in order for the inference to make sense.

No it does not. It requires that it is the position of some religious people to oppose the Iraq war, and the position of other religious people to support the Iraq war.

Yes, I do think the religious can be counted on to be a near bloc vote when the issue is whether we should strip the religious of their basic political rights.

That was not the topic under discussion.

I'm not going to make the effort when I feel you are yanking our chains (among other reasons).

I have made it very clear, more than once, that I am not 'yanking your chains'. I find it incredible that people here are unable to engage in a discussion of this topic. Nehor even said that he couldn't discuss it without personal rancor or abuse. That's very disturbing.

[_Moniker]

You don't need to be politically active to effect political change. The Quakers are an excellent example of this. I believe that religious people can effect social and political change outside the political machinery, and that they are best doing so.

It's impossible to effect political change without being politically active.

The beauty of religion in America is that there is no general consensus and the more denominations and sects we actually have the healthier the process is.

Do you believe that 80% of the people in America are religious, and that the religious have 'almost total control over the government and military'?

I know that the majority of Americans self identify as religious. So in our federal and state governments they make up the vast majority, as well. If only those that were atheists held positions of government and could vote or could represent the people then there would be a radical shift of our entire system of government -- it would be a tiny minority representing a tiny minority.

Thank "God" I live in a country where the dissenting voice can be heard and can create great tidal waves of change even when being unpopular!

I'm grateful that the same privilege exists in Australia. Of course, this does not require involvement in the political process.

How does one change the status quo without being involved in the political process -- and the political process would include votes, petitions, campaign financing, rallies, etc...

Look at these Christian women that shouldn't have participated in the political process in Australia according to Fortigun:

Why single out 'these Christian women'?

Because they're in your country of origin and they worked within the political process. You single out all religious people by saying they should stay out of the process -- I point out a group of ladies that this applies to.

It's not a gross misrepresentation -- these women are religious and according to you should not participate in the political process. They did and I'm glad they did.