Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times ^ | 11/13/5 | Bill Vidonic

Posted on 11/13/2005 3:49:41 PM PST by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-686 next last
To: DoughtyOne

Only if the shoe fits.


51 posted on 11/13/2005 4:40:00 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Belief in intelligent design destroys only one belief system, that of those who have accepted on faith the origin of man from a single celled organism.

If you wish to examine evolution in it's observable state, I don't have a problem with it. I don't even mind the study of what seems to some to be implied. I do draw the line at teaching things that have not been proven, to be irrefutable fact.


52 posted on 11/13/2005 4:42:53 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It's nice to see a few new trolls for a change. Breaks the monotony.


53 posted on 11/13/2005 4:43:00 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marsh_of_mists

Every time I read anything he has said in the last year, all I keep coming back to is why can't he just keep his mouth SHUT? Every time he opens it, something dumb comes rolling out that hurts him even worse. This is getting painful to watch, it's like watching someone being tortured only he's doing this to himself.


54 posted on 11/13/2005 4:43:21 PM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Oh, I see.

Well, it's not Sunday unless a "loving Christian" has told my poor Scots-Catholic butt that I'm going to Hell because _I'M_ the one who's not Christian.

55 posted on 11/13/2005 4:44:34 PM PST by Malacoda (Islam = deranged, evil suicide cult)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
But I don't care because I do not believe in the public school system. They are anti-Christian in every way -- every last one of them.

You know, on this point I entirely agree. It's funny because on so many issues I find myself coming down on the same side as Christians. This is one of those. Government schools are an atrocity. They are socialist brainwashing camps. That is why this debate is so - ? ? ? - weak, feeble, stupid, or fill in your favorite invective here.

I used to think that having an educated populace was a requirement for democracy and the existence of the U.S. which justified public schools. I question that now. Would it be better to have government schools brainwashing students into socialism or tests for literacy before individuals could vote? Today it would no longer be a racial issue. Just as many whites are illiterate anyone else. What's the harm?

56 posted on 11/13/2005 4:45:17 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Well I didn't, but you obviously did. And changing my words to suit your unsustainable arguement won't sell.

You do have my sympathy though. I realize what a crushing blow it is to be confronted with the reality of your faith based belief system.


57 posted on 11/13/2005 4:45:55 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

You're going to get tired saying the same thing over and over. It gets old. I like having fun and leaving a few scratching their heads.


58 posted on 11/13/2005 4:46:12 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
You failed to understand my point.

Those who would dictate to others that their religious beliefs must reign supreme in a science classroom, despite the scientific evidence, are no different than the Taliban. They harm the Conservative Movement by making all of us conservatives look like non-scientific, bombastic authoritarians.

59 posted on 11/13/2005 4:46:43 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

The real issue though is how adopting ID will undermine the scientific and technological progress of America.


It won't because there are whole boat loads of immigrants eager to make their mark. They'll do this by educating themselves in joints like MIT and Caltech and working for U.S. companies.

Meanwhile, companies and foundations that hand out grant money will largely ignore or scuff at the communities that adopt ID, fearful that if they so much as sent them a single microscope, the community would treat it like the apes treated bones in the beginning of 2001 film.


60 posted on 11/13/2005 4:47:41 PM PST by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

There are huge gaping holes in the lineage of single celled organisms to man. You guys have no answer for that that cannot be shot down. Therefore, it is a falsehood to claim that the theory of man's assencion from single celled organism is anything more than a faith based belief system.

Deal with it.


61 posted on 11/13/2005 4:48:20 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Out of 55 items on your mock troll list, I was disappointed to not see my "no repeatable experiment" argument that you dismissed several months ago as simply being tripe you had heard before.

Does this mean I don't qualify as a troll in your estimation? How sad.

62 posted on 11/13/2005 4:48:25 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Belief in intelligent design destroys only one belief system, that of those who have accepted on faith the origin of man from a single celled organism.

That is false on several levels. First, belief in intelligent design as a scientific concept destroys the very foundation of scientific reasoning. Second, universal common descent is hardly a faith-based precept. It is supported by: the universality of the genetic code and other cellular features as well as the phylogenetic tree based on fossil evidence.

63 posted on 11/13/2005 4:48:58 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
There is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from a single celled organism. There are plenty of fairy tales, but when push comes to shove, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

Those who have swallowed that pipe dream hook line and sinker are experiencing nothing more than a faith based experience.

First things first: Do you accept that man evolved from an ape that was similar to today's chimpanzee?
64 posted on 11/13/2005 4:50:33 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You do have my sympathy though.

I don't need it, and could care less. Reality is inexorably on my side.

I realize what a crushing blow it is to be confronted with the reality of your faith based belief system.

Oh please. Where on earth did you get the idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously?

65 posted on 11/13/2005 4:50:59 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
And changing my words to suit your unsustainable arguement won't sell.

And you should be thankful that I'm willing to take your rhetoric and turn it into a properly scientific statement..

66 posted on 11/13/2005 4:52:41 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
And changing my words to suit your unsustainable arguement won't sell.

And you should be thankful that I'm willing to take your rhetoric and turn it into a properly scientific statement..

67 posted on 11/13/2005 4:52:46 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Santorum in panic mode and abandoning his principles Barf Alert!


68 posted on 11/13/2005 4:52:49 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'll send you the bill for the new keyboard.


69 posted on 11/13/2005 4:53:29 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I hate it when I stutter!


70 posted on 11/13/2005 4:53:41 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: marsh_of_mists
I think most of his conservative reputation is built on the fact the Left savaged him that one time when he suggested (quite correctly) that homosexual marriage would lead to other deviances being similarly accepted. The Left biliously hates him for that and says he's a "radical, extremist right-wing nut".

There was a time when Santorum was a House member and during his first term in the senate when he either was as conservative as I am or he was an excellent actor (take your pick) but I happen to believe he was conservative because he lives his life that way. When reporters or anyone thought they were nailing him, he answered them with truly conservative answers that they used because they believed they could hurt him with his own words, but most normal people thought what he said was appropriate which made him popular because he not only had the right answer, but he wasn't afraid to give it in an "in your face" manner. Sometime after his 2nd term began, he started to be just a little less conservative and since '04 when he campaigned for Specter, he has become truly embarrassing IMO. All I can figure is some fool has sold him on the idea he can be reelected appealing to the same people Specter does (HA!) or he just has the most dreadful instincts of anyone I've ever seen who is in a panic.

71 posted on 11/13/2005 4:55:25 PM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I do draw the line at teaching things that have not been proven, to be irrefutable fact."Proven" is a tough thing to do in science, for all of us scientists recognize the possibility than there can always be an exception to the "rule."

I accept Christ based upon spiritual faith. Has it been proven that Christ was the son of God? No.

I accept God as an article of spiritual faith. Has it been proven that God exists? No.

Science is not about faith, it is about empricial observations. You're having trouble with that concept.

72 posted on 11/13/2005 4:55:33 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
Faith required in the astronomical possibility of evolution is far greater than a faith required to believe in God

Stop trashing language and the meaning of words. Thinking that the Theory of Evolution is an accurate portrayal of the reality of how species differentiated is not "faith."

"Faith" is a belief in the supernatural. Evolution rejects the notion of a supernatural.

73 posted on 11/13/2005 4:55:47 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

You can always try for inclusion as a subspecies.


74 posted on 11/13/2005 4:56:58 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Name calling stopped bothering me in about the third grade. That's about when I began to question things that were told to me, that couldn't be sustained by fact. I am willing to admit my faith in Intelligent Design is just that. Sadly, you can't come to grips with your faith based belief system. I can live with that.

The theory of man evolving from a single celled organism doesn't bother me. Teaching it in our schools with exclusivity is like denying the famale children in the Middle East not to be able to attend school. It's just an arbitrary demand by people who can't even be honest enough to admit to themselves that their beliefs are based on faith, not reality.


75 posted on 11/13/2005 4:57:55 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Santorum is moving so far left he will be to the left of Specter.


76 posted on 11/13/2005 4:57:59 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

You are inadvertently correct that the possibility of evolution is astronomical, but I'm pretty sure you meant to say infinitesimal.


77 posted on 11/13/2005 4:59:31 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

"There is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from a single celled organism. There are plenty of fairy tales, but when push comes to shove, it's nothing more than a pipe dream. "


There is no proof whatsoever that man was created by God. There are plenty of myths written by men in books but when push comes to shove, there's absolutely nothing tangible to prove either the existence of a God, nor its hand in the creation of matter.


78 posted on 11/13/2005 4:59:58 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion, and the case for Intelligent Design is based in science.

One wet iota of evidence that ID is "based in science." One single, tiny little bit of evidence that it is anything but fantasy. Any. . . Single . . . Bit . . .

79 posted on 11/13/2005 5:01:01 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Belief in something that can't be proven can only be sustained based on what?

You're loathe to admit that 'evidence' is not conclusive. Therefore your theory cannot be proven. You don't like it that I use that word. I don't blame you.


80 posted on 11/13/2005 5:01:05 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Fruitbat

"When did Santorum lower his britches to get his onions pruned!"

Probably right about the time he realized there will be exactly ZERO conservatives working for him in his next election. Though I'm sure a few self-styled conservatives will immediately pop up to claim otherwise.

The sad thing is I'm not even an aficionado of ID, but he did advocate it before and now he's flipping. I would rather elect a consistent, obvious lefty than a GOP waffler who'll screw you when you least expect it and need them on your side. At least with the lefty you know to keep your guard up, and at least with the lefty you will eventually get to nominate a conservative after the lefty embarrasses themselves. With guys like this, you're thinking you've got the votes, and then whammo, you get a Bowie to the dorsal.


81 posted on 11/13/2005 5:02:36 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Let O'Connor Go Home! Hasn't She Suffered Enough? Hasn't The CONSTITUTION Suffered Enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

"You would have to call the founders that because they did not see God in the classroom as an enemy to Science and that evidence is pleantiful."


Yeah, the founders also thought that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women had zero rights to anything, and one (Jefferson) even believed that the 'lost tribe of Israel' would be found in the newly-acquired Louisiana Purchase, giving specific instructions to Meriwether Lewis on how to handle them if Lewis & Clark found them.

I.E. Not everything the Founders did was necessarily correct nor above scrutiny.


82 posted on 11/13/2005 5:02:53 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Are you aware that no scientific theory is ever proven?

Just asking.

83 posted on 11/13/2005 5:03:01 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

ROFLMAO! Saved this post BUMP!


84 posted on 11/13/2005 5:04:14 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Let O'Connor Go Home! Hasn't She Suffered Enough? Hasn't The CONSTITUTION Suffered Enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Old Testament is not a reflection of Christian attitudes, and should not be presented as such. Jesus brought a new way of living.

He indeed brought a new convenant, but did not change what God was hoping for, nor his judgment.

Matthew 5:17-18

17. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

And for sure, the love of Christ for sinners is truly a grace, that the second chance is always there for those who repent. But don't forget his words in Luke, 24 v. 44. And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. 45. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures; 46. and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; 47. and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48. Ye are witnesses of these things.

Anyways, special protections in this material plane certainly can be withdrawn (abandonment) without any particular abandoning of hope for the miscreant's souls. Up to the day they expire, they have an opportunity for repentance. But they don't need special perquisites of divine protection up to that point....nor are they entitled to such.

85 posted on 11/13/2005 5:04:25 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

No, you're having a hard time accepting that absent proof, the evidence is inconclusive. I do understand the terms you guys would like to limit this to. As I said to another person, I don't blame you.

You know that the evidence is not conclusive. I know the evidence is not conclusive. Why do you folks have such a hard time admitting what we all know?


86 posted on 11/13/2005 5:05:01 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

"I accept Christ based upon spiritual faith. Has it been proven that Christ was the son of God? No.

I accept God as an article of spiritual faith. Has it been proven that God exists? No.

Science is not about faith, it is about empricial observations. You're having trouble with that concept."


How refreshing! Someone who gets it and whose faith is NOT threatened by science!


87 posted on 11/13/2005 5:05:32 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

Well it doesn't automatically. But as I understand it, that's pretty common.


88 posted on 11/13/2005 5:06:06 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion

Religion concerns itself with "supernatural" issues. Evolution (there is no such thing as "Darwinianism" - idiots) only concerns itself with "materialism" (the main complaint against it) so it cannot be a "religion." You guys need to study the English language more and learn the meaning of words. As it is, you don't understand what you are talking about.

89 posted on 11/13/2005 5:07:04 PM PST by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"If faith baised issues should not be taught in schools, then evolution (as it applies to the origin of man) should not be taught there either.

"If one unsustainable theory can be taught there, then all unsustainable theories should be able to be taught there.

To steal a demand from the creationist cadre: Prove that the theory of evolution is a faith based science. Prove that the ToE is unsustainable.

90 posted on 11/13/2005 5:07:16 PM PST by b_sharp (Please visit, read, and understand PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
One wet iota of evidence that natural-selection Origin is "based in science." One single, tiny little bit of evidence that it is anything but fantasy. Any. . . Single . . . Bit . . .

No? I thought not.

91 posted on 11/13/2005 5:07:47 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Belief in something that can't be proven can only be sustained based on what?

A preponderance of the evidence.

You're loathe to admit that 'evidence' is not conclusive.

No, I am not. The 'evidence' is not conclusive.

Therefore your theory cannot be proven.

Which theory?

You don't like it that I use that word.

If you mean either the word "faith" or the word "proof" then my objection to your use of them is that it's false (and inane).

I don't blame you.

I don't have anything against you either. My concern is scientific progress and the education necessary to promote it. Otherwise, I have no problem with you believing whatever makes you happy.

92 posted on 11/13/2005 5:08:28 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings

If people really wanted freedom they would educate their own kids -- and pay for their own everything else too. But people only give lip service to freedom. No one really believes in it anymore. So what do we do? Well, I stay as far away from gov't schools as I can, for starters.


93 posted on 11/13/2005 5:09:03 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Okay, if that's the argument you would like to fall back on, why do you guys go apoplectic when others wish to have intelligent design taught right along side your theory?

If your theory is not provable, it's just comical to watch as you demand that it be taught to the exclusion of other theories.

You have faith in your theory. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. What I do find objectionable is that you simply refuse to accept the falibility of your theory.
94 posted on 11/13/2005 5:11:59 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You understand that the debate on evolution versus ID in the U.S. is being watched very carefully by the rest of the world, right?


95 posted on 11/13/2005 5:14:54 PM PST by durasell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I don't have to prove it. Your own side admits it. Even the supporters of teaching evolution to the excusion of anything else, admit it.


96 posted on 11/13/2005 5:15:12 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Okay, if that's the argument you would like to fall back on, why do you guys go apoplectic when others wish to have intelligent design taught right along side your theory?

Intelligent Design does not meet the requirements set forth for an explanation to be considered "theory".
97 posted on 11/13/2005 5:15:16 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER
..."The 2nd law of thermodynamics had to be violated for the theory of evolution to move from idea to fact..."

Jeez-O-Pete I absolutely HATE this line when it appears. It is ABSOLUTELY incorrect to say that the theory of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the 2nd law, chemistry, physics and the notion of a "closed system".

Let me enlighten you, Ice-Flyer, with a brief, and hopefully clearly understandable explanation of why this is so:

The Earth upon which we live is not a truly closed system. Gobs of Space Junk rains down on our planet. Stuff "leaks" out of our atmosphere. And and almost UNIMAGINABLE amount of energy is dumped into our planet from the Sun.

Molecules just lying around, minding their own business get positively PELTED by various forms of radiation, both from the Sun, as well as extra solar cosmic radiation. This energy allows molecules to be "kicked around" into states and configurations of a higher order and energy state. These more "complex" chemical molecules are futher subjected to bombardment, and they "climb" the ladder of stored chemical energy and complexity.

Now, If you look at this independently, you might make the mistake that the 2nd law is somehow being violated. By itself, the chemicals seem to be adding complexity and energy states all by themselves.

However, this is not the case. You see, the ENTIRE system includes the Sun as the energy source, and it indeed is running down. All our life, and for that matter, weather and geological processes ultimately rely on the Sun as a heat and power source. And the Sun is consuming VAST amounts of Hydrogen to liberate the energy to make this possible. And one day, it will run out, and the 2nd law is in no way violated.

As the Solar System in toto runs down, things will get cold and dead, and the 2nd law will be satisfied.

People do not violate the 2nd law by reproducing.

Wind does not violate the 2nd law by blowing, seemingly arising from nowhere.

You just have to find the source of the chemical/mechanical energy driving the reactions.
98 posted on 11/13/2005 5:15:27 PM PST by Rebel_Ace (Tags?!? Tags?!? We don' neeeed no stinkin' Tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
the founders also thought that blacks were 3/5 of a man ...

Not really. The three-fifths clause started out as a proposal to apportion taxes among the states under the Articles of Confederation. The more population you had, the more taxes your state would pay. The South wanted to count only citizens; the North piously said they wanted to count everyone. The North offered the 3/5 clause as a compromise. It wasn't accepted.

Both sides flip-flopped during the Constitutional Convention, when, for purposes of representation in the House, a big population was an advantage. So they fell back on 3/5, for both taxation and representation.

No one was debating what a black person was worth compared to a white.

99 posted on 11/13/2005 5:15:39 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LogicWings
Religion concerns itself with "supernatural" issues.

Actually the better definition [See Religious Tolerance.Org ] is as follows:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture, Darwininan Originism etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. "

100 posted on 11/13/2005 5:16:14 PM PST by Paul Ross ("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-686 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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