Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Scientism be considered a religion on Free Republic?
June 30, 2008 | Kevmo

Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo

The crevo threads typically degenerate into name calling. Recently, the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion and start to utilize the protections offered under the religion tags that are different than other threads (due to the intensity of feelings over religious issues). So this thread is intended to be an ECUMENICAL thread under the tag of SCIENTISM. The intent is to keep discussion civil.

I would like to see a straightforward discussion over the topic of whether scientism should be treated as a religion on FR. I'll try to find the links to the adminlecture series about what the ground rules are on ecumenical threads, and I'll copy some recent interactions that show the need for scientism to be treated as a religion on FR.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: ecumenical; mysterybabylon; religion; science; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-532 next last
Threads & links to follow.
1 posted on 06/30/2008 4:44:01 PM PDT by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Latest round of posts on this issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2038708/posts?page=175#175

To: tacticalogic
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.

164 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 2:46:47 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not. If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else? Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.

165 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:03:18 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: tacticalogic
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not.
***You’d think that was true of any religion, but it’s not. Hence, the ecumenical and caucus threads. The religion of scientism would be no different in that regard.

If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else?
***Because the rules for ecumenical and caucus threads are very clear, and the kinds of comments that the evolutionists don’t like to see would be thrown out by such rules. See, they would get what they want. All they gotta do is admit it’s a religion.

Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
***The religious flame wars do not continue on caucus threads. They continue on the open threads, which is how things oughtta be.

166 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:08:34 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
Are there any tactics or forms of attack that are not permitted (”mind reading”, attributing motivation, etc.) on “open” threads in the Religion forum that aren’t particularly restricted here?

167 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:12:07 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: tacticalogic
Yes. That’s what the caucus threads are for.

168 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:13:00 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
There are no restrictions about engaging in those kinds of tactics or personal attacks in the Religion forum, except on the caucus threads?

169 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:15:39 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: tacticalogic
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.

170 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:23:50 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
Don’t worry about the caucus and ecumencial threads.

Are there any rules about what’s considered acceptable civil debate in the Religion formum in general that are more stringent that what’s generally applied outside of that forum?

171 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:30:49 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: tacticalogic
I have no idea.

172 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:33:37 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
Get one. The RM’s don’t want it over there because they don’t want the flame war. You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion” and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion. If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.

173 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:42:42 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: tacticalogic
What are you talking about? Is this thread an example? Where does it call itself a crevo thread? It’s about religion.

You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion”
***Baloney. And maybe you should get an idea.

and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion.
***If they’re open threads, then your kind of tactics are allowed. If they’re not open threads, your kind of tactics are not allowed. You are engaging in projection here, kiddo. Interestingly enough, such tactics would not be allowed on a caucus thread.

If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
***You are the one who doesn’t understand the limits that have been put on theo discussions, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking such basic questions.

Hasta la vista, you may have the last word.

174 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:53:29 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
What are you talking about?
I think you know exactly what I’m talking about.

175 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56:14 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)


2 posted on 06/30/2008 4:47:16 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Religion Moderator’s home page,

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

How the threads are sectioned:

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”


3 posted on 06/30/2008 4:49:41 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Science is not a religion.

"Scientism" is a fabrication of creationists' minds, much as are "Darwinism" and "evolutionism."

They are all designed to demonize an enemy so that it makes it easier to hate them.

I will not be participating in this thread.

4 posted on 06/30/2008 4:50:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

I can’t find the thread where the ecumenical tag was first introduced.


5 posted on 06/30/2008 4:54:50 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

They are all designed to demonize an enemy so that it makes it easier to hate them.
***The purpose of this thread is not to demonize an enemy. The purpose is to have civil discussion over this issue.


6 posted on 06/30/2008 4:56:10 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

The civil discussion part would definitely be a plus. Conservatives hold vastly different religious viewpoints.


7 posted on 06/30/2008 4:59:04 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Here is where some of this discussion took place:

Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?
Yomin Postelnik

Posted on Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:25:27 PM by Yomin Postelnik

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=167

To: DaveLoneRanger; Religion Moderator
Thanks for the ping, Dave.

What comes to my mind is the religion moderator’s recent posting and discussion of the new rules on religion. It seems like he needs convincing that Atheism/Darwinism/Scientism/WhateverItIsm is a religion that should come under his purview at FR.

109 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:44:11 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)


8 posted on 06/30/2008 4:59:19 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

It was on this thread that the RM declared that “ science is not religion”. Then after that, some of the evolutionists started calling this the “official policy” of Free Republic, on other threads. I pinged the RM to have the criteria laid out for determining how it’s decided whether or not it’s a religion, and there was no response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=116#116

To: Coyoteman; js1138; Kevmo; DaveLoneRanger
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138. The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.

“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.

116 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:04:22 AM by Religion Moderator


9 posted on 06/30/2008 5:02:47 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

The world is older than 6,500 years by mutiples of thousands. This isn’t a religious belief. Its high science.


10 posted on 06/30/2008 5:03:06 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

The world is older than 6,500 years by mutiples of thousands. This isn’t a religious belief. Its high science.
***Thanks for the post. When this subject comes up, I’m always reminded of two excellent freepers and the book they wrote on this subject:

Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture by Jean Drew and Sandi Venable (Paperback - Dec 14, 2006)
Buy new: $19.96 14 Used & new from $19.18

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=don%27t+let+science+timothy&x=9&y=16


11 posted on 06/30/2008 5:06:55 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

Here is a sampling of where this issue was discussed on another thread. Now I feel free to discuss these issues with some civility expected from the participants.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=122#122


To: Religion Moderator; Coyoteman; js1138; Yomin Postelnik
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138.
***I posted essentially the same request.

The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
***My perspective is that Scientism is becoming a religion. Look at how vigorously its adherents defend it. Look at the definition of a religion, and see if it applies. At the edge of our human knowledge, Scientism becomes a faith like any other.

So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
***No interest by whom? Moderators? Or participants?

“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
***Glad to hear it. If Atheism is a proper tag for inclusion, it could also be a proper tag for exclusion on a caucus thread, similar to something like the catholics all talking amongst themselves about whether Mary was assumed to heaven and how to deal with vociferous critics on that issue. It seems like this should be some kind of caucus thread in terms of the atheism tag that you mention. Perhaps that’s what the original poster intended.

120 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:28:03 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Kevmo
Moderators and participants. I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them, but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.

125 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:49:58 AM by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Soliton
Many churches hold services behind closed doors.

126 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:51:00 AM by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Religion Moderator
Moderators and participants.
***Well, at least on the participant side, you have me and the 2 others you mentioned who would like to see a similar setup in the Science threads. I think it would be nice to see fewer threads getting hijacked.

I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them,
***Okay, that makes sense to me. This particular thread appears to be an atheism thread and it would seem to fall under your purview.

but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.
***That part does not make sense to me.

127 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:58:01 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Soliton
“ I believe we will be able to produce simple life in a laboratory soon based on the current state-of-the-art biological paractices.”
Then your faith is going to cause you great dispair. Your dream will never be. Its the faith of a fool.

141 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:03:19 PM by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: editor-surveyor
Then your faith is going to cause you great dispair. Your dream will never be. Its the faith of a fool.
I would rather live in honest dispair than as a deluded fool. Magic doesn’t exist. Ghosts don’t exist. Your beautiful dream is just a beautiful dream

142 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:45:46 PM by Soliton (Investigate, educate, then opinionate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
Why would you find it such a relief if you also know that such “ideologies can function as a religion”?
It’s sarcasm. Regardless of what a particular moderator might say, science is continually labeled a religion on science threads.

Evolution is so labeled because its findings are inconvenient to some believers. Evolution sprang out of geology, so geology is also tarred with the same brush. Geology bases its ages on physics, so physics is tarred with the same brush. Trigonometry finds a minimum age for the universe to be 168,000 years, so mathematics is inconvenient to religion. There is no branch of science that has mot been thrown under the bus.

143 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:16:23 PM by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: TigersEye
If “vigorous defense” is the definition of religion I guess belief in the 2nd Amendment should now be considered a religion.
***It is not the only criteria for the definition, but it is certainly one of them. We see that the Religion Moderator determined that Scientism is not a religion, but we do not see what the criteria were.

144 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:38:48 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
You should ask. I’m sure the McCainiacs would like to have criticism-free threads to promote their idol.
Onward 2nd Amendment soldiers! ;^)

145 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:43:31 PM by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Soliton
Your faith is just a faith, like any other.

146 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:46:23 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: TigersEye; Religion Moderator
You should ask.
***OK, then I am asking. Religion Moderator, what is the criteria for deciding whether something is a religion? See post #116: “.... science is not religion.”

Even adherents in this thread acknowledge the faith element in this new idealogy, and admit that any idealogy can become a religion.

147 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:55:11 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Religion Moderator
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138. The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
It’s something of a relief to hear that the official position of FR is that science is not a religion.

Now if FR would only follow through with the obvious policy that starting religion based flamewars on science threads is trolling.

128 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:59:47 AM by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Coyoteman; Religion Moderator
It is now official policy that science is not a religion.
***That happened on this very thread, in post #116, and it’s why I’m asking the moderator for his criteria in determining that policy. It seems ironic that the same folks who want protection using a caucus type of system on science threads are the ones who claim that it’s official policy that Scientism is not a religion, as if the Religion Moderator on Free Republic was the Final Authority on the subject of whether something is a religion.

Mark 4:22 “For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light.”

1 Cor 4:5b He will bring into the light of day all that at present is hidden in darkness, and he will expose the secret motives of men’s hearts.

To: js1138; Religion Moderator
So my request is simply to remove comments from science threads that are not relevant to the objectives and methodologies employed by science.
***I see the religion moderator is quiet, possibly due to internal discussions with other moderators as to how to handle this thing. The fact that the atheism tag has been used successfully on an ecumenical thread is instructive. And it’s also instructive that the mod claims there’s no interest, and that it appears the impetus would come from the moderator as to whether he/she would even WANT to try to moderate such discussion (most likely NOT). So if you want to see flame-free discussions on scientific subjects, the impetus is likely to come from someone like you. When you post an article, you will likely get cooperation from the mods if you post it under the religion forum using a “scientism” tag or whatnot. Of course, it also means that whoever chooses to open discussion under such a tag has implicitly/explicitly agreed that scientism is a religion. Until then, it appears we’re all stuck with the existing system.

155 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:54:51 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

176 posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:36:09 AM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


To: Kevmo
No secret motives.
I am just tired of science threads being trashed by fundamentalists who interject their religious beliefs into non-religious discussions.

They have driven away a lot of scientists from this website. In the real world the same attitudes have driven away a lot of folks—whose votes are ever more critical—from the conservative cause.

I happen to believe that conservatism does not equal anti-science fundamentalism, and I am resisting that equation wherever I can.

OK?

177 posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:42:17 AM by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


12 posted on 06/30/2008 5:22:01 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in Creationism would go onto the Religion Forum threads and argue. They go by faith and you go by scientific theory.

If a thread is moved to the Religion Forum, why are you there? I don’t understand.

I’m not a creationist btw.


13 posted on 06/30/2008 5:23:53 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; js1138; Yomin Postelnik; DaveLoneRanger; Soliton; editor-surveyor; TigersEye

I have mentioned all of you in posts on this thread, so I’m pinging y’all. If I left anyone out, please ping them.


14 posted on 06/30/2008 5:25:42 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
"...In contrast, in a merely “open” society, there is no such thing as transcendent truth: perception is reality and everyone is free to think and do as he pleases, with no objective standard by which to judge it. This kind of “bad freedom” eventually ramifies into the cognitively pathological situation we now see on the left, especially as it manifests in its purest form in academia (the liberal arts, not the sciences, except to the extent that science devolves into metaphysical scientism"). ..."

4 posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 2:34:40 PM by Matchett-PI (Algore - there's not a more priggish, sanctimonious moral scold of a church lady anywhere.)

15 posted on 06/30/2008 5:28:20 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Scientism” isn’t a good term. You could use “Freethinkers”, “Nontheists”, “Skeptics”, or maybe “Brights”. “Skeptics” may be the best option, because it allows a distance for the members of the group when posting to the religion forum. What would be the point though? I would imagine that there would be threads like “10 reasons why God is a prick and Jesus was gay [Skeptic Caucus]”. I’m not even sure that FR is equipped to handle the current situation in the religion forum. I don’t think it is wise to invite even more vitriol here.


16 posted on 06/30/2008 5:29:19 PM PDT by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in Creationism would go onto the Religion Forum threads and argue. They go by faith and you go by scientific theory.
***When you say, “you go by scientific theory” do you mean me, Kevmo? Or do you mean the collective “they” as in creationists?

If a thread is moved to the Religion Forum, why are you there? I don’t understand.
***I don’t understand your question. This thread was OPENED in the religion forum with the prior communication of the Religion Moderator, to see if we can get some civil discussion on this issue, see if it’ll fly. I don’t know if threads get “moved” to the religion forum — the thread that Yomin opened up would NOT be moved to the religion forum because the Religion Moderator said that it wasn’t OPENED in the religion forum. So I gather this question is one for the moderator.

I’m not a creationist btw.
***I am a creationist btw. I used to be an evolutionist. My model for creationism is very much aligned with Alamo Girl & Betty Boop’s, at least as far as I can tell.


17 posted on 06/30/2008 5:30:42 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion

First, "scientism" is a distortion of science but it is not "science." Second, while it may be a belief system, not all belief systems are religions. Maybe scientism is a political ideology. Third, is this really worth it? To what end?

18 posted on 06/30/2008 5:30:52 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Interesting quote, sounds like he nailed it.


19 posted on 06/30/2008 5:31:41 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
It's standard operating procedure for evolutionists to claim the privileges of religion and of non-religion whenever it suits their purposes.

My experience is that the "theistic evolutionists" here on FR are "deists," since they seem to reject the very possibility of a supernatural revelation (such as what happened at Sinai) out of hand even as they claim to believe in "gxd." Maybe they should just be called "deists," except that would leave out the atheists and agnostics who are every bit as hypocritical and every bit as fanatical.

20 posted on 06/30/2008 5:32:45 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (...veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Thursday, May 08, 2008

If Darwinism is True, it Can’t Be

And when I say “Darwinism,” I am making a sharp distinction between the modest claims of natural selection versus the impossibly grandiose claims of reductionistic Darwinism, just as I always distinguish between science and philosophy of scientism, the latter of which far exceeds what is warranted by the evidence, and is only believed by a who’s hooter of philosophical boobs & rubes.

Naive Darwinism is a subset, or variety, of scientism. Only an immature mind could believe it, since it requires the simultaneous gullibility and grandiosity of a child. Or, to turn it around, if you can believe that, what won’t you believe? For it is pure magic, the kind of magic that always rushes in to fill the void where a coherent metaphysic should reside as an anchor and axis for the intellect. In the absence of real adult religion, people become either superstitious or substitious, but either way they miss the mark, for scientism is just a more sophisticated way of being stupid. It is primitivism for sophisticates, neopaganism for urban barbarians. ...”

Continued: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-darwinism-is-true-it-cant-be.html


21 posted on 06/30/2008 5:33:51 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

First, “scientism” is a distortion of science but it is not “science.”
***Well, as far as I can tell, if you can point out to someone who believes in Scientism that they have distorted science, they are very likely to accept what you have to say and examine it carefully.

Second, while it may be a belief system, not all belief systems are religions.
***Ok, so you acknowledge that scientism may be a belief system. As such, shouldn’t it enjoy the ecumenical protections offered to other belief systems on Free Republic? It is actually those who HOLD to this belief system who are asking for the protections, but they don’t want to acknowledge it as a religion. Kind of a conundrum.

Maybe scientism is a political ideology.
***It seems to be a wide political spectrum thing. There are scientism followers who are leftist, rightist, centrist, and radical. I don’t know how you’d define something as a political idealogy. Nazism, communism, fascism, democratism/democracy (?) are the kind of ‘isms that I think of when I think of a political idealogy. But when I think of religious idealogies, I think of catholic, protestant, jewish, Islam, Hindu, baptist, etc. I think of scientism as a religious idealogy.

Third, is this really worth it? To what end?
***The end in sight is to have civil discussions on scientific issues, which is exactly what the scientism followers are asking for. To that end, I think we can arrive at a process where it can take place and the crevo wars would only continue on open threads.


22 posted on 06/30/2008 5:39:00 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Oh I’m sorry! I totally misunderstood your thread. I thought you were a non-religious person coming in to the religion forums wanting to argue.

Again, my apologies!


23 posted on 06/30/2008 5:41:38 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Iron Mom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

In the absence of real adult religion, people become either superstitious or substitious,
***Over at Dictionary.com:

No results found for substicious.
No results found for substitious.

What does it mean?


24 posted on 06/30/2008 5:43:03 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All

“...This idea actually goes to the very heart of Polanyi’s critique of positivism in particular and of scientism in general, something I’ll be discussing in more detail in subsequent posts. That is, he did not regard scientific theories as objectively true; but nor are they merely subjective. This represents a false dichotomy. In actuality, subjective and objective are complementary and operate in a dialectic fashion to extend the human mind into the unknown, thus expanding the interior (and therefore exterior) horizon of the cosmos.

That might sound overly abstract, but it’s not. Polanyi compared scientific theories to the cane of a blind man. Imagine if...”

Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/11/probing-vertical-unknown.html


25 posted on 06/30/2008 5:46:00 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

That guy is a good writer. I’ll have to finish reading his essay later.

One Cosmos
Circumnavelgazing the Whole Existentialada of Lumin Development with Mental Gymgnostics, Verticalisthenics, Freevangelical Pundamentalism, Dilettantric Yoga, Laughty Revelations, Wide Angle Pneumography, Isness Ministration, and Darwhiggian Evolution, all in a Reluxing Atmasphere of Omade Jehovial Witticisms and deep levitas


26 posted on 06/30/2008 5:48:27 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Aspire!

Ecumentic Thread=> Limited Debate=> Protected Status

If some can achieve it, why not Scientism?


27 posted on 06/30/2008 5:51:12 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I don’t think you are supposed to copy comments from other threads without the addressee’s name.

It would be better to just list the hotlinks.


28 posted on 06/30/2008 5:52:28 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
You did a good job with your home page.

I like the explanation of the guidelines.

JJ

29 posted on 06/30/2008 5:52:42 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

In answer to your question — NO!


30 posted on 06/30/2008 5:53:26 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

“Scientism” isn’t a good term.
***I would have used “Scientology” but that one was taken.

You could use “Freethinkers”, “Nontheists”, “Skeptics”, or maybe “Brights”.
***I have no preference. I’ll use whatever term they prefer for themselves. Unfortunately for them, many refuse to acknowledge the element of faith in their belief system — maybe science faith is a descriptive term?

“Skeptics” may be the best option, because it allows a distance for the members of the group when posting to the religion forum.
***I’m a skeptic. That one doesn’t fly very well.

What would be the point though? I would imagine that there would be threads like “10 reasons why God is a prick and Jesus was gay [Skeptic Caucus]”.
***That would be up to the religion moderator. The science faithers WANT protection from religious zealotry, and I agree that they should get it, even though I am more in agreement with the religious zealots than the science faithers.

I’m not even sure that FR is equipped to handle the current situation in the religion forum. I don’t think it is wise to invite even more vitriol here.
***Actually, the aim is to invite LESS vitriol, because the system appears to be working well on the religion threads.


31 posted on 06/30/2008 5:57:13 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Why?


32 posted on 06/30/2008 5:57:57 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The aim of this thread is to reproduce the discussion in an “ecumenical” environment rather than as an open thread. My understanding of the rules of having parallel threads allow this approach. Shall we have a discussion on this topic?


33 posted on 06/30/2008 5:59:26 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Hah hah, well said. ;-)

Note that from now on when I see some science faither complain about all the religious zealots on his precious thread, I’ll just point him to this thread and tell him to follow the instructions. ;-)


34 posted on 06/30/2008 6:01:39 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I agree. Here’s more:

“...If culture is to be understood, it must have a structure; if a structure, a hierarchy; if a hierarchy, an end. Nor is “infinite progress” possible. Rather, if a series is hierarchically ordered, it is conditioned from top to bottom and cannot be infinite; if it is infinite, then it cannot be conditioned from top to bottom. In other words, in the latter scenario, there is no higher and lower, just a kind of infinite horizontal dispersion in all directions.

No. Man, because he is man, may know the absolute within his own transcendent interiority, which paradoxically “contains” the infinite. Conversely, to deny this absolute is to deny man and to reject the measure of all knowledge: the uncreated intellect.

The world is not real, contrary to what the reductionists tell you. And when I say this, I mean “absolutely real,” in that if it were absolutely real, then we couldn’t be. Rather, we would be reduced to the “real nothing” beneath our feet, as opposed to the transcendent absolute above our heads: “The common illusion of an ‘absolutely real’ within relativity breeds philosophical sophistries, and in particular, an empiricist and experimental science wishing to unveil the metaphysical mystery of Existence.” But to pursue this illusion is analogous to believing “that an animal endowed with sight were more capable than a blind man of understanding the mysteries of the world” (Schuon).

As Perry writes, “man is virtuous because God is Good.” To the extent that the latter is not known, the former will eventually not be realized, for virtue is not mere behavior but consciousness of a reality. Nor will we know anything worthwhile, for we will have abolished the measure of all things, and thereby live long and meaningless lives that make up for in shallowness what they lack in depth.”

Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/religious-humanism-vs-darwinist.html


35 posted on 06/30/2008 6:03:11 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thanks for framing the discussion.

So, do you think Scientism should be considered a religion on Free Republic? Why or why not?


36 posted on 06/30/2008 6:07:37 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Scientism is philosophy, therefore it is religion.


37 posted on 06/30/2008 6:10:40 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

The way I see it, it boils down to how a person answers this sort of question:

If everything were falling apart, the social order was breaking down in such a fashion as to make the Rodney King Riots look like Romper Room, and the economic system was faltering like in the great depression and [fill in the blank on various other disaster scenarios for mankind] and we had nuclear weapons at the ready with crazy generals in the field with their hands on the buttons, how do you think we would get out of this? Where do you place your faith? Would it be placed on man’s ability to right himself? Would it be placed on God and His care for His creation? How would we get out of this?

Science faithers typically answer by saying they have faith in how science deals with issues and that’s where the answers would come from. Their faith is in science, in the wisdom of man. I don’t think it’s a big deal that they place their faith there ( I used to ) but they should be up front about this supposition.


38 posted on 06/30/2008 6:19:30 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All

“...After all, anyone can practice a religion, whether it is Christianity, Darwinism, Atheism, or Materialism, but that doesn’t mean they understand their religion in any deep way. For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely. A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?

When we talk about metaphysics, we are talking about very basic truths that are adequations to divine/human realities that cannot not be, such as “Absolute,” “being,” “truth,” etc. But...”

Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-of-center-and-religion-of.html


39 posted on 06/30/2008 6:28:00 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

The disdain this forum has for science is not one of its stronger points.

Why aren’t there more scientists here? Oh, that’s right. They were shown the door.

Equating science to religion as some sort of perjorative frankly makes no sense at a forum which values religion.


40 posted on 06/30/2008 6:39:58 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Equating science to religion as some sort of perjorative
***That’s where you’re wrong. The aim is to generate civil discussion, not frame the other side in a harsh light.


41 posted on 06/30/2008 6:46:27 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Fanatical agnostics?

I DON'T KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

;-)

42 posted on 06/30/2008 6:47:05 PM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Why aren’t there more scientists here? Oh, that’s right. They were shown the door.
***If there was this ecumenical tag system in place at the time, they’d still be here.


43 posted on 06/30/2008 6:47:48 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

What’s harsh about it?

Science is about observable facts, the scientific method, and quantifiable things. It’s about evidence and conclusions.

Religion is not about any of those things in a measurable sense. It’s about faith, belief and doctrine.

The two are not contradictory, but they couldn’t be remotely considered the same. If scientism (however you might define that term) is a religion, then everything is.


44 posted on 06/30/2008 6:56:15 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

The disdain this forum has for science is not one of its stronger points.
***Actually, it’s the disdain this forum has for SCIENTISM, not science. I love science. I dislike scientism. But for those who want scientism to be a recognized and protected philosopy/religion/whatever, I’m all for them having access to the ecumenical tag to protect them.

Also, I went through the crevo threads when JimRob was showing some of them the door. Invariably, they weren’t following simple forum guidelines, they were extremely rude and obnoxious, and for the most part they didn’t contribute to conservatism. A few months later there were people saying stuff like, “there was a purge of evolutionists? I didn’t notice.” They didn’t notice because the evolutionists were using this forum as their pet playground to beat up religious conservatives and they rarely ventured out into other threads, giving us the benefit of all of their wisdom.

Free Republic is not a science forum. Right on the front page, JimRob “posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I’m receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps. “

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.

Note that the Pro-God stuff is what came first. Hard core atheist evolutionists have overlooked that one in the past, to their own detriment it turned out.


45 posted on 06/30/2008 7:00:38 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

All the worlds religions can be boiled down into two religions:

God is sovereign

Man is sovereign (man earns his salvation)

Saturday, June 21, 2008
“And the Weird Light Shines in the Dorks, but the Dorks Don’t Comprehend it

What is reality, anyway? Our paradigmatic science, physics, reduces the world to a few beautiful equations, but the equations don’t tell us how to generate a world with them. In fact, they provide no factual content whatsoever for the world we actually encounter. So which world is the “real” world? The inconceivable quantum world undescribed by physics, the ponderable world we encounter with our senses, or the eternal world known only to the illuminated intellect?

Science is obviously a wonderful tool, but when it is elevated to a metaphysic it is remarkably empty of content and meaning, especially as it pertains to the meaning of our human journey, the Adventure of Consciousness. One of the implications of Gödel’s theorems is that any logical or mathematical system will generate questions that are not answerable within the system. Ironically — or perhaps “cluelessly” is a better word — many postmodernists use Gödel to try to prove that all knowledge is therefore relative, but this was not Gödel’s point at all.

Rather, Gödel ...” ~ Gagdad Bob

Continue: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/06/and-weird-light-shines-in-dorks-but.html

Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob] , Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics.


46 posted on 06/30/2008 7:04:20 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Scientism is, as you say, “ about faith, belief and doctrine.” As such, it deserves its own ecumenical tag so that it can be free of the religious zealots who jump on it.

If scientism (however you might define that term) is a religion, then everything is.
***You’ll need to expand on your reasoning here because it doesn’t really make much sense. Science is not a religion, but putting your faith in science is a religion. It’s that faith element that is the point of departure between science and scientism.


47 posted on 06/30/2008 7:04:25 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Again, good writing.

“Science is obviously a wonderful tool, but when it is elevated to a metaphysic it is remarkably empty of content and meaning, especially as it pertains to the meaning of our human journey...”

Gagdad Bob sounds familiar. I’m wondering where I ran into him before. I wouldn’t doubt it if he’s a freeper


48 posted on 06/30/2008 7:07:48 PM PDT by Kevmo (A person's a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"Equating science to religion as some sort of perjorative frankly makes no sense at a forum which values religion."

I agree. Science isn't a religion. It only becomes a philosophy (religion) when scientists, themselves (like Dawkins) attempt to mesh philosophical ideas WITH science. Only then does it become "scientism".

49 posted on 06/30/2008 7:11:09 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You may have run into him on LGF (Little Green Footballs). He used to post there a lot before he started his own blog.


50 posted on 06/30/2008 7:13:36 PM PDT by Matchett-PI ("It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-532 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson