Free Republic

I see your point and don't fundamentally disagree. The Tory Party really lost the plot toward the end of the Thatcher regime; too many self-serving MP's had crept in, more interested in looking after themselves than in what the country needed. Most of our party's wounds were self-inflicted.

But Labour in power have gotten away with murder. Levels of National Insurance taxation are crippling, educational system has been FUBAR'ed by the Left politicos, immigration run amok, and street crime is Labour's biggest 'growth industry.'

But a lot of Americans seem unaware of Blair's domestic policy, and/or give him a pass because he has been a reasonably solid ally of the USA.

I agree President Bush is a man of integrity, honesty and conviction, but sorry, I don't apply any of that to Mr. Blair.

I presume the 'jellyfish' you mean is Gordon Brown.

Well, even if Blair does manage to stage a 'coronation,' I'm reasonably optimistic the Socialists will be out of office come next election. As a lame-duck leader of a rump Government, I'm not too worried about how much damage Mr. Brown can inflict before he is shown the door!

Wasn't my first choice, either, but I've been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't understand Blair's popularity in the USA. He's been reasonably good on the GWOT--but it's a no brainer, isn't it? The Tories would have done better, if we had been in power.

I think some Americans don't realise that Blair is a Socialist. He's Left rather than Hard Left, and that's bad enough. It's his own Hard-Left that have turned on him now; good news, it paves the way for the Conservatives at the next general election.

All we have to do is keep Mr. Cameron true blue!

“There are thousands of genes that are redundant. We found about one in a thousand genes that are unique to the eggs – and some of them, they don’t have a known function yet,” Cibelli said. “Now we can clone these genes and put them into cells and see if they may have a role in the creation of stem cells – without fertilization or destruction of human embryos.”

All very intriguing, and promising line of inquiry -- hope it proves frutiful!

There is something eerily familar sounding in this story, but I can't quite place it. Has it already been posted under a different title, or something?

Very well put, and bears repeating.

Anglican communion (my own denomination, if that matters) takes the same view. I imagine (but cannot demonstrate) that many if not most Christians would agree.

The ones who don't agree make enough fuss to sound like a mahority, but I doubt that.

In the genuine hope that most conservatives take an interest in science rather than making themselves look silly with sniggering posts, here's a link to the article (which is defective in this thread). here.

The beef appears to be, one would actually have to read the article to know what it was about, and not just the headline.

It is a waste of time to engage with folks who can't even do that. And it feeds the left-wing MSM with yet more annoying "Republicans are anti-science" Shinola.

Conservatives are NOT anti-science. But reading some of the foolish 'fly-by-postings' on this thread, I can see why that claim gets perpetuated.

Very depressing.

And he went to his grave still thinking he had sailed to the "Indies."

Actually, that's not the case.

The ancient Greeks (starting at least with Pythagoras, 6 centuries before Christ) had worked out the earth had to be a sphere (using scientific principles), by the time of Pliny (1st century AD) the notion was generally accepted, including by most of the church fathers, such as Augustine, and many later clerics (such as the Venerable Bede).

The only real doubters were a minority of early Christian authors (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, Diodorus of Tarsus and a few others) arguing for a 'flat earth' on purely Scriptural grounds. The Church occasionally produced further proclamations in favour of a 'flat earth' (such as Bishop Vergilius), but by the 8th century AD, the matter was more or less settled, at least among the learned.--and probably the general populace as well. Our ancestors may have had less education than we boast, but they were surely far more observant of the changes of the seasons and the events of the night sky; and you can't make much sense out of even casual astronomy assuming a 'flat earth.'

It's a modern myth that prior to Columbus folks thought the earth was flat. That was a poetic myth created by Washington Irving, who wrote a popular book portraying Colombus in heroic light. Now, of course, we know that Colombus was pretty unsavoury, but that is beside the point.

Now, none of the above takes anything away from the intent (as I read it) of your first point in your posting: scientific 'truth' is not determined by opinion polls. It is determined by doing science.

I wouldn't worry about 'bandwidth' half as much as I would worry about someone so obsessive they go around tracking down FReepers on the internet.

Have look at the poster's history; genuinely obsessive stuff.

Friendly advice: I'd give someone with those kind of problems a pretty wide berth.

Thank you for this simple but eloquent statement, with which I could not agree more.

There are too many religious bullies around, claiming to speak for 'Christianity' who are narrow-minded hypocrites. They shame my Christian faith, and they damage us all claiming to be 'conservative.'

I do not choose to proclaim my particular religious faith from the rooftops, nor to assault folks with my creed; I hope instead that I strive to live by it.

I find it hard to belive that some, who are so shrill in their religious hysteria, are living by faith in a way that I can understand.

It's a good time to be a Conservative in the UK, and getting better by the day! We have been out in the cold far too long, but not, I am sure, for too much longer.

[PhilipFreneau] That is a myth perpetuated by Moral Relativists, like yourself. Answer this: prior to the Christians and early Jews, which nations practiced the Law of the Lord (e.e., "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." - Matthew 7:12)? Just curious.

Ae you talking about 'nations practising law' or (as I was) 'people practising morality'?

The moral principle of Matthew 7:12 is of great antiquity, and probably close to a human universal. It would be a greater challenge to find creeds or moral systems that reject it (there have been such cults, granted; but arguably the exception proves the rule)

In Hindu scripture (the Mahabharata) dating from circa 500 BC, one finds "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". (5:1517)

In China, we find in the Confucian Analects (15:23) ""Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you", and also, from the Doctrine of the Mean (13.3) "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'"

Many examples abound, though as ever with on-line material, one needs to dig to satisfy oneself the quotes are accurate. Google on 'Golden Rule', or make a start here.

Now, as you demanded of me (I do not say "asked of me"), I have provided you with an answer, although you have provided no answer to my civil questions of you in posts 469 and 470--indeed, your only reply to those posts was to call me a "moral relativist" and state your "suspicious of your claims that you are Christian."

Do you consider your behaviour in our exchange in accordance with the teaching of Matthew 7:12.?

Or are you still intending, in accordance with the principle of recipricocity, to answer my original questions to you, to wit:

[Post 469] "is it your contention--as your post [291] implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?", and

[Post 470] "Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American?"

Just curious.

Which is a matter of no consequence.

The Lord does not need your assistance in determining who walks with Him.

[PhilipFrenau] I see. You are a Moral Relativist.

LOL.

You are joking, yes? Or did you genuinely miss the extremely simple point? The moral values (which you specifed in your previous post) are absolute, and also common to most folks, as I indicated.

We may not all agree on the foundation for those morals, that is a different issue.

And it is also a secondary issue. I happen to believe that Matthew 19:19 is pretty absolute; you are the one who would appear to be 'relativistic' about it.

I do not think this is your intent, but such a statement sounds very close indeed to "No non-Christians allowed."

Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American?

No, I didn't think it was. But you expose yourself to that kind of misinterpretation

These are among the highest of our human ideals and laudable in every regard. These are the values by which most of us live, and most of endeavour to inculcate in our children.

They are central values of my own faith as a Christian. But these values are not, however, uniquely Christian.

I live in good accord with friends, colleagues, and neighbours who both profess and practise identical values--and who are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists. We may all find different foundations for these values in our personal creeds (or lack thereof), but the values we practise are common to us all.

Or is it your contention--as your post implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?