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

Skip to comments.

Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea
Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creoslavery; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 next last
To: From many - one.
1. Why is is not wrong to have slaves? 2. How does the idea that is is not wrong to have slaves relate to your religious views?

1.In the U.S. it is wrong since it is against our Constitution. Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right. 2. No one has been able to show me from the Bible where God says it is unlawful or lawful to have slaves. Therefore I can have my own opinion.

701 posted on 10/12/2005 4:37:53 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"When did atheists and evolutionists stop believing in the theory of the evolution of the tooth fairy?

Answer: They haven't."

Does lying make you feel better about yourself? Will it bring you a better seat near God? Or is it just something you choose to do despite its immoral nature?
702 posted on 10/12/2005 4:38:00 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
One of the benefits of not being a literalist is that one can understand the underlying truth of the Bible and not have to twist one's mind into a pretzel in order to defend parts for which understanding is context based.

In other words, since you don't understand or believe it, no one should be quoting from it.

703 posted on 10/12/2005 4:39:30 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"If the our government sanctioned slavery I would say it was wrong because it would be against our Constitution."

Too late, you have already said you don't think slavery is wrong.

""My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves. "

And what if the Constitution was amended to include slavery? Would you have any kind of moral argument against it then?

"What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries."

So you are a moral relativist?


704 posted on 10/12/2005 4:41:00 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Why does our constitution say it is wrong to have slaves? All the founders of the country were nominal Christians. Why was it OK then and wrong now?


705 posted on 10/12/2005 4:41:59 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You are equating what the government allows, what is legal, with what is moral. According to this statist mentality, people can do anything they wish to each other if a majority says so. That is the essence of evil.

You are the one twisting and spinning. I did not say slavery was moral just because the government allows it. Abortion is not moral and the government allows it. Besides, abortion has nothing to do with the majority. It is a minority who support abortion.

706 posted on 10/12/2005 4:42:13 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
... I frequently beat my staff.

Sometimes, it's difficult to maintain an adult demeanor when confronted by such opportunities.

707 posted on 10/12/2005 4:44:45 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

"For all I know he could be a dumb Darwinian posing as a Christian. Lots of factors involved and so little time and logic on your part."
________________________________________________________
He quoted scripture to support his position, not Darwin.
________________________________________________________

You honestly don't get it, do you? A dumb Darwinian can selectively use Biblical scripture as well. Anyone can post from the Holy Bible to undermine or support his arguments. If there's no understanding of the Bible it's all so useless and counterproductive.

This give and take with you is useless and counterproductive mainly because we have distinctly different world views.



708 posted on 10/12/2005 4:45:22 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
And what if the Constitution was amended to include slavery? Would you have any kind of moral argument against it then?

Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral.

709 posted on 10/12/2005 4:47:10 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Are you THX1138's bio progeny?


710 posted on 10/12/2005 4:47:14 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

THX1138 is someone else.


711 posted on 10/12/2005 4:48:54 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: js1138

What a coincidence---1138 I mean.

Could be a mutation of some sort.


712 posted on 10/12/2005 4:55:19 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
js1138.jpg


713 posted on 10/12/2005 4:59:55 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
thx1138.jpg


714 posted on 10/12/2005 5:02:50 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"A dumb Darwinian can selectively use Biblical scripture as well. Anyone can post from the Holy Bible to undermine or support his arguments. If there's no understanding of the Bible it's all so useless and counterproductive."

Talk to him, not me. He's the one quoting the Bible.

"This give and take with you is useless and counterproductive mainly because we have distinctly different world views. "

Agreed. I believe in reason and rationality, you believe in mysticism and subjectivism.
715 posted on 10/12/2005 5:06:56 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"I did not say slavery was moral just because the government allows it."

Why DO you say slavery is moral then? You have already said you didn't think it was wrong.

"Abortion is not moral and the government allows it."

Why is it immoral and slavery isn't?

"Besides, abortion has nothing to do with the majority. It is a minority who support abortion."

No it isn't; but that's a different subject.


716 posted on 10/12/2005 5:10:19 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral."

Apparently you are a nonentity.
717 posted on 10/12/2005 5:11:41 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I believe in reason and rationality
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Saying it about yourself doesn't make it so as your posts sadly prove.

It's for others to say it about you. Sadly there are too many who do. Then again with time...time is important with the evos - you'll come around.


718 posted on 10/12/2005 5:18:53 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"Saying it about yourself doesn't make it so as your posts sadly prove.

It's for others to say it about you. Sadly there are too many who do. Then again with time...time is important with the evos - you'll come around."

Is that what passes as a creationist argument these days? What do you think about your fellow creationist's advocation of slavery?
719 posted on 10/12/2005 5:31:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
The posting has been removed. It exists in your memory...whatever that is.

Wrong. The exact text of the pulled post is in #603. I couldn't believe it so I cut and pasted it before it got pulled.

720 posted on 10/12/2005 5:36:28 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Behold:

the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral.

The "Festival of the Troll Who Couldn't Think for Himself" continues unabated... one wonders how he might feel about changing lanes without first signalling.... I'm pretty sure that isn't covered by scripture

721 posted on 10/12/2005 5:36:52 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
1.In the U.S. it is wrong since it is against our Constitution.

Let me make sure I have you right here. Slavery is wrong because we prohibit it and only because of that. We didn't prohibit it because it was wrong and it was not wrong until we prohibited it.

I read things like this and chuckle at having so often been told on these threads that agnostic materialists like myself have no moral compass.

722 posted on 10/12/2005 5:37:53 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"Comment #375 Removed by Moderator"

Another stick on stupid moment.


723 posted on 10/12/2005 5:44:56 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Are you THX1138's bio progeny?


724 posted on 10/12/2005 5:46:37 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I believe in reason and rationality

Yes, I'm confident that you do. It's revealed by your posts.

725 posted on 10/12/2005 5:53:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

You said "I don't consider it wrong to have slaves"

"You" and not others.
"You" and not the government.

Why do -you- not consider it wrong to have slaves?

I'm glad you acknowledge that your support of slavery is not based on your religious views.


726 posted on 10/12/2005 5:58:51 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The "Festival of the Troll Who Couldn't Think for Himself" continues unabated...


Landru, help me!

727 posted on 10/12/2005 5:58:55 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"Are you THX1138's bio progeny? "

What do you think of your fellow creationist's use of the Bible to support slavery?. What is your position on the Bible's support of slavery in certain verses?

(I won't be thrown by your non-answers)
728 posted on 10/12/2005 5:58:55 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

No.

IOW since I am free to recognize that the apparent anomalies can easily fit if I do not have the hubris to assume that fallible humans have perfectly and accurately transmitted the words of the Bible and if I recognize that God was not writing a biology textbook, my understanding is quite possible greater and more accurate than yours.


729 posted on 10/12/2005 6:03:21 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
That meains that it is a given that Christians would oppose slavery and subjugation as indeed they have done over and over again.

But Taxesareforever said that he finds slavery to be morally permissable. Moreover, I can find historical references of Christians using Christianity to justify slavery. In fact, wasn't the Southern Baptist Church the result of a group of Christians disagreeing with the rest of their denomination over the moral nature of slavery?

Seems as though you're selectively ignoring reality to make a dishonest point.

Most of the world's totalitarian political leadership has embraced atheism and evolution...using the arguments therein to enslave and annihilate millions of "unsuitables" and "lesser" evolved humans, even the pre-born.

Can you cite references where someone actually cited the theory of evolution as justification for such things? Not allegations that this is the case, I want a reference to an actual historical figure using the theory of evolution to justify abhorrent acts.

I'm not saying that such examples don't exist at all, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your claims with actual fact.
730 posted on 10/12/2005 6:10:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Landru, help me!"

You speak strangely, friend, are you from away?
731 posted on 10/12/2005 6:12:11 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; eleni121
When eleni121 waved the Gould quote around, that was to be understood as a rebuke to evolution. "Evolution can be and has been used to justify slavery," in so many words. Do we have a double standard here? Slavery would seem to be bad ... but only sometimes if tolerated by some people.

How long will the silly dance go on? Is slavery only bad when some people support it? Is slavery only bad when and where it is outlawed? That's what taxesareforever is claiming now.

Where are the creationists saying that what taxesareforever is saying is wrong? Is "witnessing" that good, that you can support any old thing at all under the banner thereof?

732 posted on 10/12/2005 6:15:39 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

You stated:"...What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries...."

What are your views on burkhas, honor killings, infidel killings, suttee, footbinding?


733 posted on 10/12/2005 6:17:02 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

" Where are the creationists saying that what taxesareforever is saying is wrong?"

Crickets.... chirp! chirp!


734 posted on 10/12/2005 6:19:34 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

You posted:"That meains that it is a given that Christians would oppose slavery and subjugation as indeed they have done over and over again."


Also as they have -not- done over and over again.

Many non-Christians have opposed slavery. Many Christians have supported it.

Being Christian does not seem to be a deciding factor in relation to supporting slavery.


735 posted on 10/12/2005 6:21:41 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
That meains that it is a given that Christians would oppose slavery and subjugation as indeed they have done over and over again.

On this thread, it is not a given and has not happened even once, unless we count the chiding of the hated evolutionists by the spurious waving about of an SJ Gould quote. When does the dance of equivocation, distraction, and denial end? Is there a creationist with backbone and integrity? Can a person with backbone and integrity BE a creationist, with the evidence picture being what it is?

Is slavery bad? If taxesareforever has no problem with it, is he being morally lax? Is his interpretation of the Bible overly literal? What do you think about this?

736 posted on 10/12/2005 6:31:03 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Many non-Christians have opposed slavery. Many Christians have supported it.

I suppose it may blow the brains of some folks, but Darwin was very much opposed to slavery.

737 posted on 10/12/2005 6:32:12 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'll bet that with a little creative quote mining he can be declared to have invented it or something.

It is truly disheartening that not even one literalist has disavowed the stance taken by taxesareforever.


738 posted on 10/12/2005 6:38:27 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"Comment #375 Removed by Moderator"

Another stick on stupid moment.

=========

Sorry, but you are wrong. The exact text of post #375 is below, as well as in #603, to which I referred you--apparently you did not check #603, or didn't believe it. I cut and pasted post #375 because I didn't believe anyone could say this.

I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge, or condemn, this post.

You don't actually agree with it, do you?

=========

To: Thatcherite

My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.

375 posted on 10/08/2005 5:49:05 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

739 posted on 10/12/2005 6:39:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I do believe there is a time lapse between the Constitution and the Civil War. However, the Civil war was fought over states rights but an end result was the end to slavery. History 101.


740 posted on 10/12/2005 8:53:48 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
one wonders how he might feel about changing lanes without first signalling.... I'm pretty sure that isn't covered by scripture

The government prohibits that by law. Therefore I must abide by it.

741 posted on 10/12/2005 8:57:18 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

What are your views on abortion, partial birth abortion, government taxation, taxes for public schools which teach what you wouldn't want taught, removal of God from anything resembling a public place and euthanasia?


742 posted on 10/12/2005 9:05:03 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
one wonders how he might feel about changing lanes without first signalling.

LOL. Depends if he drives in NY.

743 posted on 10/12/2005 9:07:05 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
The posting has been removed. It exists in your memory...whatever that is.

My memory and the memory of about 15-20 other FReepers. Plus it has been documented for all to see.

Does your belief system allow you to lie and misrepresent facts so shamelessly or are you just making it up as you go along?

744 posted on 10/12/2005 9:10:36 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Non-responsive post.

Here's the original:

To: taxesareforever

You stated:"...What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries...."

What are your views on burkhas, honor killings, infidel killings, suttee, footbinding?

************

Note that my questions refer to your statements about people living in other countries. Your response does not.

Since you do not think slavery is wrong, in which countries or under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate?

745 posted on 10/12/2005 10:02:14 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Of course I consider abortion wrong. If the our government sanctioned slavery I would say it was wrong because it would be against our Constitution.

So you don't consider slavery to be wrong, but if it were legalized it would be wrong because it would be against the Constitution. I feel like the AFLAC duck in the Yogi Berra commercial!

So, um, was slavery wrong before the 13th Amendment? What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries.

Wow. Moral relativism too. How did you arrive at this? No wait, let me guess: The Old Testament has God constantly giving the Israelites special laws when he's not busy suspending other laws just for them, so moral relativism is the only Godly philosophy of ethics.

Am I close?

746 posted on 10/12/2005 10:03:23 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Since you do not think slavery is wrong, in which countries or under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate?

Analyze my previous posts. My all-sufficient answers are in there. Your questions are typical of liberal spin. If you don't like an answer you demand more answers to questions in order to finally find something that fits your profile as out of line. Forget it. You are not getting it from me.

747 posted on 10/12/2005 11:08:45 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Junior; taxesareforever; jennyp
Whereas the Koran considers it good to free one's slaves.

Even though the only places slavery is still practiced are Muslim lands

748 posted on 10/12/2005 11:09:51 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Am I close?

Only in your dreams. Only in your dreams. Don't feel bad. Sometimes you even sound like the AFLAC duck.

749 posted on 10/12/2005 11:16:49 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Only in your dreams. Only in your dreams.

OK, so why do you believe that

What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries.

750 posted on 10/12/2005 11:23:22 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 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