NoGodBlog.com

Lets just see how the Supreme Court rules in Penn. Then we will have a clearer understanding as to what our next move might be.

Patience my friends. A national secular backlash is already brewing.

May God save us....hey,...that's Me!

are we not men we are devo!!!i cant beleive it!!{ ok yes i can }what a bunch of idiots!!!were going in the wrong direction!!!,as rainbow for dino says lets see how the pa case goes????ahhh let us pray.ha ha .woops, sorry...where is there intelligence?i guess its not in there design?

Let me know what I can do to help. I was lucky enough to have a Biology teacher in 1992 that told my class creationism was a crock and gave us everything we needed to understand and view evolution. I feel horrible for those kids in Kansas who's minds will be warped by Ignorant Design.

WHAT CAN WE ALL DO TO HELP? Where's the best place to donate $ to fight this school board?

My girlfriend's father is a Science teacher at a public school in Joliet, a city near where I live. I had never inquired about his religion, but one day he pretty much confirmed what I'd thought. His son was asking what he thought about all this "forcing teachers to teach I.D." crap, and he said "I'll teach Evolution until they force me to stop. And even then, they'd better monitor my classroom the entire time."

I found it amusing. I love her family.

I'm sure you've answered this before but election day yesterday and this topic are somewhat connected.

It's been posted that the passage of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed in Texas. Supposedly denying Civil rights to some.
OK. Civil rights come from the government.
Since our nation was founded on the principle that "All men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", as atheists do you deny that later point of unalienable rights?
If so, then do all rights come from the government?

well it is sad that it did actually happen in kansas but i cant say that i am suprisd it happend

and phreedm
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

which article is this from

the declartion of indepence phreedm a document that only shows our intent on leaving the british empire not a document that gives a legal defintion of the rights of the citizens of the united states of america

The Declaration was addressed to a monarch who was also the head of a church and who claimed his authority 'by grace of god'.

The Declaration of Independance was, in effect, a divorce document.

The Constitution is the founding document of the U.S.A. It does not mention any god, and mention of a god or of hayzus, was rejected when it was written, even under threat of walkout by some state representatives.

The Declaration is no more a founding document of this country than a divorce decree is a founding document of a second marriage.

Like a divorce document, the Declaration made a later union possible, but it did not found it.

OK. I do find it interesting that several of you don't view the Declaration of Independence as a founding document. For the sake of discussion I'll conceed that point.
But to the last question. If you as atheists do not believe in a Creator, therefore can not agree with the Dec. of Indpendence statement that we are endowed with certain rights from the Creator, "Where do our rights originate from"?

I can't believe I actually read this. Are we still in the dark ages? Is this what we have reverted to? This has got to be a (bad) dream.

Hey, Silverman. Great job on MSNBC yesterday!

prheedm said: But to the last question. If you as atheists do not believe in a Creator, therefore can not agree with the Dec. of Indpendence statement that we are endowed with certain rights from the Creator, "Where do our rights originate from"?

Our rights originate from minds, just like the concepts of gods. It’s that simple. Humans form groups and make up laws and religions, proclaiming rights, morals and all sorts of things. Read all about it in your nearest anthropology text book, and Eric Hoffer's True Believers (how mass movements rise and fall).

OK, about this Kansas thing. I'm thinking we should suggest they keep an open mind. For example, I think it is important to present "different theories" at all levels. In geology class, perhaps they should suggest to the students that Pele, an Oceanic goddess is what causes volcanoes. We shouldn't be "closed minded" and reject other myth systems in our science classes, right? ;-)

Seriously, I'm appalled at the scientific literacy of those parents who are doing their darndest to make sure their kids remain ignorant also. Science is not about picking something you believe from your religious myths as a conclusion. Science must go where the evidence leads, and THEN form the conclusion.

The only reason we have knowledge of evolution and ideas about the big bang is because that is where the facts led where all the evidence fits. We don't get to make up a conclusion and then cherry pick a few facts to support it and call that science.

I think you're forgetting that these people don't care about science per se, they care about religion. Just like they don't care what kind of education their girls get except for how it relates to their ability to raise god-fearing kids. Medievalism at its finest.

On the lighter side, PA citizens ousted their school board yesterday. The backlash in my own state (MN) against ID is growing rapidly.

RICHARD YUO IS CRAZY

In geology class, perhaps they should suggest to the students that Pele, an Oceanic goddess is what causes volcanoes.

Lies! We all know it to be TRUTH that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and that he began with a mountain, trees, and a midget.

... the Dec. of Indpendence statement that we are endowed with certain rights from the Creator

Well, Phreedm, you missed something here. It does not say the 'C'reator, it say their 'c'reator. The statement is purposely pluralistic; intentionally designed to be inclusive of the many different flavors of christianity and deisms that had escaped the oppression of King George and the state clergy of England. It acknowledged that religion is a personal experience, not an overarching assumption to be codified into law.

But as tomwright pointed, it doesn't really matter because the DOI is not the law. The US Constitution is.

Phreedm,

I find the concept of unalienable rights misleading. There are no such thing. Any right can be taken away with a simple Constitutional Amendment. I think the "their creator" bit was both an obvious reference to God, AND a refusal by the founding Fathers to acknowledge God directly -- a compromise between the FFs. Nothing more, and again not Law of the Land.

Hey guys!! It's not all bad!!

We won in Dover!!!!

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/apparent_end_of.html

And we will win in Kansas too. A backlash is inevitable, because at the end of the day ID doesn't have a pot to piss in when it comes to peer-reviewed research and empirical evidence. People will see that their kids are getting a substandard science education and the crazies will be swept out of the Kansas school board in the next election.

Phreedom

I find the concept of unalienable rights to be more of a theoretical concept than something concrete. An ideal rather than something humans can hope to perfectly protect. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seem to be such nebulous concepts when we see what the law of the land is comprised of.

R4D,The backlash has begun, clearly. Thanks for the link!

David! Again, as in the other thread, I MUST STRESS THAT THE POST AT 10:38 WAS NOT MADE BY ME!
AGAIN, PLEASE CONTACT WHATEVER TECHNICAL PEOPLE HELP YOU KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING!
HEEEEEELP, MY NAME IS BEING HIJACKED!.

More on the good news coming out of Dover, Pa.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/tech/main1027359.shtml

This is fantastic!!

Hairless, the dude must've swiped your password. If he can do that, then we are all at risk here. Hopefully it can be thwarted. But if it's a problem with b2elvolution's software, then that might mean that the whole site will have to be migrated to a different content management system. Yikes!

RainbowRaptor, I know!
SO I REPEAT: ANYONE WITH -ANY- SOLUTION/IDEA, PLEASE SPEAK UP N' OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

As for suspects, the only one really jumpin' out, as it were, would be whoever "I AM A TRUECHRISTIAN" is.
The only I reason I'd suspect said person is that it's the only person I've been -truly- antagonized by on this blog, at least recently.
Yet, I admit, at least one blatant fact speaks -against- my suspicion:
That TRUELOON can hardly be considered to have an IQ above 25
and so would be unlikely to manage to in any way hack a site/i.d,/password.
But hey, maybe the moron has a savvy big-brother/sister... who knows?
Or maybe it's someone else entirely, honestly I have no real idea... just... HELP! ANYONE!

"God is gooder than science in Kansas"
Once again Dave your condescending attitude towards Kansas shows. Do you pretend to stutter when talking to someone that stutters?
Stick to the facts man and don't cheapen this blog with ridiculous comments implying that Kansans are idiots.
I do not agree with the school board decision and will voice my disagreement when i vote and any other chance I get. Debates are not won by attacking your opponent but by attacking their reasoning.

I don't think everyone in Kansas is an idiot or that Dave is implying that. But maybe they do need a little wake-up call.

Maybe Dave is just trying to get them to realize what a laughingstock they're making of us to the rest of the world. Because they are, and I think they deserve a little derision because of it. If it were Georgia (which has been in national news as well for the evolution issue), I wouldn't be angry at people for poking fun, I'd be extremely embarrassed, and angry at the school board for considering such nonsense to be science.

Maybe this will inspire the apathetic "silent majority" to finally stand up and do something about these lunatics.

notyourdaddy, I get what you're saying, in re: David's comments on Kansas, but... eh, if the shoe fits.
I don't think he's ever said that something like: ALL PEOPLE OF KANSAS ARE MORONS... and neither do I think anyone here, or anywhere for that matter, would make such a blanket disparagement.
But saying that people voting for teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory are ignorant, I can't see as invective. Why?
It isn't. It IS, indeed, a theory...
but so are a lot of ideas.
But a theory in -scientific- terms is something very, very different than when we use the term theory in a colloquil manner.

"kansas makes the country more stupider","god is gooder than science in kansas" if this is not condescending what is? Come on Dave I know you can think up a catchy title for a thread without this crap.
Well if nothing else it proves atheists can be jerks too. hahaha.

No, but many are ill-informed and uneducated in science. Right here in TX we constantly hear to let the local district teach their own standards. It's so much being a jerk to actually want science taught in science class. Next they'll want the truth that the South lost the Civil War in history class.

"god is gooder than science in kansas" is the impression that the decision of the education board is portraying to those in the outside world that can see ID for what it really is. The impression is that most Kansans want to teach their kids fairy tales on an equal footing with science.

Is that impression fair and balanced? Probably not, but as it is the official state position, the state as a whole is likely to be lambasted with any flying derision.

It is the State of Kansas that is being derided because of it's democratically arrived at position.

In my opinion Kansas is fully deserving of the derision, and those (many) Kansans that disagree with the position should be in the forefront of voicing that derision.

OFFTOPIC:
Dave, I'll thank you here as well.
THANK YOU.
Hope this will end it.
If not we'll have to launch a joint effort to track down the bastards behind this and then... THEN we'll gouge out their eyes with rusty spoons and rip off their nuts with plastic forks. We will march on a road of bones! Hoist that rag!

Hi Not,
I thought of you when I wrote that title. I knew you wouldn't like it, and yeah, maybe I am a bit of a jerk.

Here's the rub. I think we've been too politically correct when it comes to ID. It IS stupid. It IS IDiotic, and it IS hurting children.

It IS also democratically elected, so the people of Kansas ARE responsible. The people aren't stupid, and not all agree, but we have to face the fact that this kind of decision hurts the entire country, starting with children.

I have no pity for that. Please forgive my lack of political correctness. It strikes a nerve.

HM Huzzah!

Or.. maybe YOU are the imposter! Oh no! It's like that episode of Star Trek! And that Other episode of Star Trek! Who is the real HM?

Well stated, Dave, I agree. Many of us are responsible for this ID/creationism thing being allowed to spiral out of control as it has.

It's time to take the kid gloves off with these people and let them know we're willing to fight about it. Many people don't see anything wrong with presenting ID as simply an alternate view, but I for one, in this situation, would use an old saying I acquired from my dad..."give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile."

I am a public school teacher in a fairly progressive state very close to Pennsylvania, and embarassed and angry at what is happening in our schools. I teach ancient history, including the first humans, and Bible Stories are considered a primary resource (ugh!) in our text. I have to watch everything I say. If my boss and parents found out I am an athiest, I am sure it would be a witch hunt. (Hmmm- early retirement!)

I think God is punishing me for being an athiest. (hehehe)

Oops! I DO know how to spell atheist.

David, I YAM WHAT I YAM! SAM I AM!
I AM LONO! ... and so on.
Nah, I'm the genuine article, alright. Name's Michael S. Olsen.
Living in a city of ca. 50.000 in Denmark called Ballerup (though I'll soon move a few miles away to an even smaller town called Måløv... same county or its danish equivalent, though).
I AM BACK! DAVID HAS SLAIN THE GOLIATH OF IDENTITY THEFT!

Whoops! Maybe I -shouldn't- post such personal details, considering the kind of fecesslurpers out to discredit me. (A feat I manage quite well on my own, thank you!).
But hell... if they wan't something they can meet me head-on. Instead of this sort of no-balls cowardly underhanded wanna-be jerk-off trip.

Its funny. Growing up in Texas, I was actually surprised that I was taught evolution, the Big Bang, and that the world is billions of years old. Of course this was pre-Bush Texas of the 1980's and early 90's. Some people might say those “theories” have been discredited by now and yet every time a virus becomes resistant to a vaccine, I see another example of evolution. Every time new galaxies are discovered, it reaffirms the reality of an expanding universe. And every time new fossils are found, their age is older than ever thought possible. It all makes sense to me, more so than what I was learning in Sunday school, but I won’t go into that.
Like DiArtemis, I’m also a teacher and it surprises me how many teenagers today will say God made the world without question. I have to be careful when I explain that the first play written was about a guy who was killed, buried, and resurrected 3 days later and happened 2000 years before Jesus. I understand why some people would try to make some deity responsible for "the creation." It's because they don't want to feel their lives have no purpose or meaning. Well who says it does?

Okay,

This is WAY off topic, but a couple of threads ago I posted a European news article dealing with rumors that the US military used chemical weapons (white phosphorus) in the battle for Faluga. Someone mentioned that I might be being a bit alarmist, and I agreed that we should be careful with such reports.

But guess what, here's a US Army report that openly admits the use of chemical weapons:

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

First torture and secret prisons, and now this? This is extremely bad news. It means that any shred of moral credibility this country may have had is totally spent. It's over. We are no longer the good guys, and no one is going to want to help us win anything for a very long time.

And I was actually feeling pretty good about things earlier this morning. Oh well.

Sorry for the downer.

Science is about the search for truth through testing observations and analyzing the results in a logical, rational manner. The analyses of those results must not extend beyond what was found. ID, Creationism, Pastaferianism & Scientology are not science & not based upon sound scientific practices and for that very reason should not be taught in school.

People misinterpret a scientific theory all the time so here it is from Merriam-Webster:

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

We have proven evolution over and over again with experiments to directly test it (DNA analysis, fossils) and experiments we didn't even know we were conducting (antibiotic resistance, random mutations in control cell lines).

The biggest problem is that evolution is misunderstood, as stated already. Our society is still under the impression that we came from monkeys (could it be that poster showing a series of steps of a monkey transforming into a man) even though Darwin specifically tried to make sure that the "Descent of Man" didn't imply that. I'm very sorry guys, I know how much you love monkeys, but we didn't evolve from them, we only share a common ancestor.

"unalienable rights" was actually talking about rights that the founding fathers thought all people everywhere SHOULD have, but were being denied to Americans by the English government. Attributing these rights to a creator was, as usual, an attempt to make these "self evident" ideas more difficult to assail. (side note: our current administration does not seem to understand this concept. Otherwise, how can you justify denying these same "unalienable rights" to others simply because they are not citizens of this country? This is exactly what the British were accused of doing!)

I think it is important to note that the protection against rule by religion was not expressed either in the Declaration or in the original Constitution. It was the Bill of Rights which expressed this. Here we see practical scientific method in action. The Declaration was obviously inadequate as a set of rules for creating a government, so something better was created: the Constitution. After the consitution was created, it became clear that further protections were needed. So the amendments that were called the Bill of Rights were created. Theory => testing => improved theory => more testing => more improved theory...

Any detailed biography of Thomas Jefferson will descibe many of the reasons behind what he wrote. The one by Alf J. Mapp I think is especially good.

Dave it appears everyone agrees with you that it's ok to make fun of people by mis-spelling words. I do not agree but hey thats ok too. If it helps the current situation i'm all for it.
p.s. thanks for your honesty in admitting you thought of me when you came up with title even though you don't agree with me that it's condescending.
I apologize for implying that your a jerk. I'm king of the jerks and i've never seen you at a meeting hehehe.

"I know how much you love monkeys, but we didn't evolve from them, we only share a common ancestor."

That's true. It's something the public needs to understand. I think one of the biggest obstacles that evolution faces is the idea of monkeys turning into people. The religious community needs to stop preaching and teaching that this is what evolution is, before any headway can be made.

Assuming that people don't wake up with the whole ID thing, we should at least send people to biology classes observe how they're teaching evolution. I suspect headlines will be running "Scalding Report Finds Intelligent Design is Taught Better in Classrooms Than Evolution" or something.

david715
...yet every time a virus becomes resistant to a vaccine, I see another example of evolution...

President Bush wants to spend $7 billion on avian flu. Obviously, the virus has to EVOLVE to be transferred from birds to humans. Yet he supports ID and probably creation. Do you guys see my point?

rainbows4dinosaurs: about white phosphorus, it's actually a white powder that burns with a bright flash when it is exposed to big pressure/acceleration. It's used for flares and they still sell it as a shotgun load. It would make your shotgun effectively a flamethrower. It's not a "chemical" weapon like mustard gas or something. I mean, then you should consider gunpowder as a "chemical" weapon.

Comment from: HairIessMonkeyDK [Visitor]
RICHARD YUO IS CRAZY
Permalink 11/09/05 @ 10:38

It says [Visitor] after the name...and it says HairiessMonkeyDK. Notice the "I". I don't get how a "Visitor" could post. You have to log in, don't you?

Not sure if it will help solve the mystery.

I meant the "L" after Hair is actually a caps "i". Copy it into a font like Courier and you'll see the difference.

phreedm:
"Since our nation was founded on the principle that "All men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", as atheists do you deny that later point of unalienable rights?"

That's actually a very smart, very clever question. I am impressed. Seriously.

I do view the DI as a founding document. So if I reject a Creator, then I'm not entitled to any inalienable rights?

We have to (yet again!) apply the yardstick of moral relativism here.

1st, I am guessing at the time of writing, it was fairly inconceivable that anyone would be an atheist. Deism/Spinozan concept would be the closest approximation.

2nd, note that it says 'All men'. (Thru the use of sophistry, this could be construed to mean males, & only males. No, no1 said this. Just pointing out how open-ended the sentence is).
Ergo, even if I DO reject the Creator concept, the FF did not, so in their eyes, I AM entitled to those inalienable rights, regardless of what I believe or disbelieve.

Allow me to top this off w/a quote (which you may or may not disparage as out of context, as I am an addle-pate).

I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
George Washington, letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May, 1789

Leave me then, sir, to the dictates of my own conscience, as is my unalienable right.

& that is my nickel's worth, sir.

Where do rights come from?

I am of the school that says that rights are anything you can do for yourself, that do not require coerced action by another.

So if what you want to do requires that someone else be forced to do something or give up something of theirs, it is not a right.

Examples: You have a right to speak, but not a right to be listened to or have others support your speech. You can buy your own soapbox, but can not force someone else to give you theirs or pay for yours. (soapbox is stand-in for press, radio, tv, etc)

You have a right to health care you can provide yourself, but can not force a doctor to provide it to you. He can choose to provide it, as a business for a fee, or out of ompassion for free, but you can not, by right, force him to do either.

But... but? But! But?!?!
I thought my nick/handle
was so -expressive-...
I mean, hairless... monkey... oh...
Dammit!

Seriously, you're right, evolution shows nothing of the sort.
It merely, as already pointed out, shows a common ancestor, a branching of the different "homo" species.

But, hell, I'll keep my nick I think.
If only as a testament to the idiocy of the claims made by believers of "biblical inerrancy".

Why did I even -choose- the nick:
HairlessMonkeyDK?

Well, the 'DK' part is just short for Denmark, and is irrelevant here.

Hairless? Hardly fitting... I'm one of these male specimens that grow dark hairs in profusion all over wether convenient or not.
(Though no back hair,
girls, don't worry! heh.)

As for monkey... well...
I -try- not to sling my stool at random passerby's... No.
I tend to -aim- those slippery suckers at the targets most deserving.
Bananas? I can take 'em or leave 'em.
Selfgratification in public?
Not my style, but if you'd like to pay for my time and... uh, strain... I guess I'd be open for suggestions.

We have a few issues:

1. Unalienable Rights have been construed and are on an ongoing basis. Last term the SCT determined that a "fundamental" (a/k/a unalienable) right is the right to access to the Courts. That falls under the "liberty" interest component of unalienable rights. David, short of repealing the whole Constitution - certain rights cannot be taken away.

2. The KS Board of Ed has been hijacked, again. It will be replaced the next term. The problem with the board is that there are staggered terms and 4 are up for direct election every 2 years. There are 6 "stealth" nuts on the Board with 3 years left in four of their terms and the other two (and 2 of the 4 that voted against this BS) are up for reelection next November.

3. In Penn. the SCT will not be ruling on anything to do with the Creationism matter until after the matter is decided. The trial court hears the case and makes a finding. If an appeal is taken it will reach the state SCT only after a state appellate court rules, if then. There may never be an appeal (actually a Writ of Certiorari) from the decision of the highest state court, and the U.S. SCT has no duty to grant Certiorari - the effect of not granting "Cert" being that the lower court ruling remains in force.

4. Kansas has a very progressive Democrat as the Governor: Kathleen Sebelius - who today gave an outstanding statement about how poorly the State Board of Education was serving the elementary and secondary students of Kansas.

5. Lawrence, Kansas and Manhattan, Kansas are the locations of Kansas University and Kansas State University, respectively, and there has been substantial opposition from those cities/counties to this new assault of reality. Johnson County, Kansas - the most populus county in the state (and the wealthiest) along with neighboring Wyandotte County (the county that has Kansas City, Kansas (not to be mistaken for Kansas City, Missouri – a little known fact Kansas City is two cities divided by a state line that cover 1 county in Kansas and four (4) counties in Missouri!)) are strongly against the changes in the education standards. It should come as little surprise that the four members of the School Board who voted against this travesty are from those areas. Kansas has a vast, sparsely populated western area that is disproportionately served by the school funding scheme that the legislature cooked up – leading to vast disaffection on the part of the outlying counties and a funding crisis that took the Kansas SCT and several extended sessions of the Legislature to address this past term. The folks out in the boonies are struggling under corporate farm incursion, low crop prices and poor schools. They will vote for change – and, did – but were mislead by the stealth Christian Candidates and their private agenda to return Kansas to the forefront of school reform.

6. Nobody has mentioned it but, the reforms of 2001 eliminated cosmology from the curricula (the study of stars, planets and deep space objects and the origins of the universe) and, by direct action of the elimination of cosmology directly affected the teaching of high school chemistry – because all heavy elements are formed in the cores of stars. Teaching that the Universe is much older than 6-10000 years denies ID. We will see how it turns out this time.

7. For anybody who wants to give up on KS, go to the FSM web site and look at how FSM got started. A reasonable KS board member promised to include FSM as an “alternative theory” and her letter is posted on the FSM site.

8. Finally, read Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas. It is a very, very fine book that really gets down to explaining the real reasons for these outrageous political maneuvers in Kansas.

tomwright

So by your definition, do we have a right to marry?
Two people can pronounce that they take each other as spouses, and be married, without involving anyone else. But that marriage will not be recognised by the gov't.
That's where it gets tricky.

GeeksHaveFeelings8D,

Yeah, I've been looking into to it a little deeper. Seems that it's kinda used in the same way as napalm; highly flammable antipersonnel and demoralizing weapon. But the results of its use are pretty sickening.

War is gross.

karen, marriage is a part of free association. people can choose to involve religion, or not, as they please.

As far as property goes, that would need to be covered under some sort of voluntary agreement. this is standard: the marriage contract. it has often been refered to that way throughout history.

enforcement of that contract, the disposition of material goods, and the settlement of any dispute, is a legitimate area of governemnt action when a mutual agreement can not be made or private arbitration agreed to.

anyone that enters into any serious relationship with anyone, whether social, business or otherwise, without an agreement in writing, is makeing a mistake.

it doesn't seem tricky to me, but maybe I misunderstand you.

tomwright

What I meant by tricky is that without gov't. recognition, we don't get marital tax breaks, we are not recognized as next-of-kin, we can't get health insurance, that sort of thing. Those governmental benefits are what many homosexuals seek in having santioned marriage. And, I believe they are a big reason why many hetero couples don't simply cohabitate.
I wasn't referring to any religious santioning at all. That and $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.
You make good points about property, etc., but that was not my drift.

ah, ok.

The problem you bring up is due to discrimination, which is a violation of the right to free association. Someone is being favoured, someone is being cheated.

By my way of thinking of rights, any number of any combination of people can choose to marry, name someone as next of kin and or heir, sign a contract to that fact, and have that contract enforced through arbitration or the courts if a dispute arises.

As far as the government goes, it should be neutral. At the most, I can see some sort of 'common law' marriage, but it would need to be codified in such a way as to recognize all possible combinations of people. Getting THAT into law would be tricky, especially with the politics involved.

So far as health insurance and such, that is part of free trade. The insurance companies are free to offer or not offer any services they choose. So the folks in a marriage would need to shop around for whatever service fits thier needs. Provided there are no governemtal restrictions that violate the right of free trade, those services wil be offered.


Of course, I am talking about rights theory here, real world politics, and the bloody-minded nature of many people, would make implementing such a thing difficult at best.

I get what yer all gettin' at,
and thankee kindly Karen for puttin' it so succinctly.

The recognition of same-sex marriages and the appointment of equal benefits must come from law, i.e. government, state-local-national,
wheras the religious aspect must come from churches/equivalents.

I, comin' from a a country, Denmark, where gays can get married, in church, though not by law, but they CAN get equality by law, though not in church, (bewildered yet?!? Stay tuned!), I must say that all of the U.S. religious right's claims fall VERY flat.
Example, Tim (I'm sure you know him) recently claimed that the countries allowing gay marriage have seen a steady decline in marriages.
FACT, from the Danish Institute of Statistics: Last year the marriage-rate increased by more than 7%.
And we've been giving homosexuals the right to recognized partnerships since ca. 1989.

FallDownTheWell And RobotSon:
If any of you should ever read this,
recognize it for what it is:
Reality's final way of saying:
yer headin' fer extinction, guys.

HMDK:
Nice stats. Ummm...got link? Since you're in the thick of it (so to speak), any other stats about other European countries, who have recognized such partnerships? W/links? Might help put the blocks to the old junker Tim's driving.

tomwright

Of course, I am talking about rights theory here, real world politics, and the bloody-minded nature of many people, would make implementing such a thing difficult at best.

Ain't THAT the truth!
I like the way you think and agree with what you said. I'd ask you to run for office, but I don't think you're American, are you?

Ummmmm....what was this thread about, again?
Is it being hijacked? (Again?)

"Woof! Woof!"
"What's that, Lassie? Timmy's fallen down a well?"
"Woof!"
"Well, let's see him argue his way out of that!"
"Woof!"
"Fetch the ball, girl!"
(Sorry, touch of whimsy, is all. Please continue).

Links?
I'll run and check!
Can't promise, though I DO think most of the Danish Gov. sites ARE available in English...
We're... international... that way.

What's it called when you get somebody in a headlock and then vigorously rub your knuckles across the top of his head? It's an affectionate gesture, if a little rough.

RA, do you know?
Hairless is so cute, that's what I want to do to him sometimes. There's a word for it, but I can't bring it out of my brain's basement.

Karen... *heartfelt sigh*... Reluctant... I'm starting to fear she only sees me as a poor infatuated boy... or at best a hormone-charged teenager... when in fact I'm a deeply disturbed... eh, I mean, -devoted- 26-year-old worshipper of her indisputable greatness. *sigh*


ALRIGHTY, THEN!
LET'S MOVE ON!

http://www.dst.dk/Vejviser/Find_Rundt/Emneord/search.aspx?keyword=%C3%A6gteskaber&searchid=370

This link is in Danish, but there should be an option for English-speaking people.

It's time to watch the crazy christian lady on the trading spouses show. No wonder I never saw this show before...it's on FOX!! This lady is really a trip. Kinda scary.


HDMK
I'll deal with you later, young man!!!

"HDMK
I'll deal with you later, young man!!!"

My imagination is waaaay ahead of you.... or.... maybe it isn't!
ye DIRTY TROLLOP!
Hehhh... hah... but, alas, 'tis love is forbidden, it could never be.
I am the love
that dare not speak its name.

karen: "RA, do you know?"
I believe the colloquilism is a 'noogie'.

HMDK:
"I'm starting to fear she only sees me as a poor infatuated boy."
Dude, you're in Denmark! Download some porn, wouldja? She's married, anyways.

Onwards.
Got any links for other European countries, vis-a-vis marriage stats?

Reluctant,
you have just affirmed the trust I held in you.
You, sensibly enough I might add,
asked me, a person you're presumably already in agreement with, for stats to bolster my argument, instead of just accepting as given any echo of a bowel movement from a supposed compatriot.
The ID boys could learn from that.
They won't... I know.
But they could.

RA
NOOGIES!!! I knew I could count on you!
Yes I'd like to slather some noogies on my cute hairless monkey!

Pardon me if I'm getting too playful or ribald. My young Dane inspires me so.

It is good to be properly adored.;-)

Reluctant!!!
HOW DARE YE, YE INFIDEL, TO DENIGRATE MY DEEPLY (and how!) FELT ATTRACTION TO YE MOTHER GODESS THAT IS KAREN!

(STEADY... Michael... remember the Voice-In-Your-Head,: "They can't hurt you if they can't find you"... Me: "But I've already TOLD 'em where I live!"...
VIYH: "What?!? You have? Geez, yer beyond repair, boyo".
Me: "Yeah, tell me something
I -don't- know!"... etc.).



AH-f'in-HEMM....

Reluctant... as for other european countries, your links are as good as mine. I can only read a fair bit of German and a small bit o' French.

Swedish I can read at about, say, 75% percent, the language being so similar to Danish, and as for Norwegian I'd be able to read most of it, as Norwegian is almost identical to Danish. (There's a caveat here though, as those wily Norwegians actually have TWO languages).

All I'm saying is, Reluctant,
that I'll look further tomorrow,
but that, basically, you'll have just as much luck finding the facts on yer own.

karen:
Yes I'd like to slather some noogies on my cute hairless monkey!

Alas poor Yorik, I knew him, Horatio.

HMDK:
Well, thanks. I'd like to think myself a Centrist: I simply require all the facts, plus and minuses.
If Tim, i.e., were actually able to prove to my satisfaction, that gay marriage was indeed adversarial to the institution of marriage, I'd have to (reluctantly) admit defeat.
& honestly, phreedm said something to that effect in an earlier post.
I looked it up, BTW, at http://www.answers.com/gay%20marriage

Here's a nice little tidbit:
"In the United States during the nineteenth century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship."
Wonder if Tim can provide stats from the 19th century in MA?

I will now leave you 2 to your shameless flirtation, hehehe.

HeatheNZ
LOL!


off-topic
Boy, that Trading Spouses show was wild. The godless family seemed normal, and so did the christian family, except for the mom. Her family was clearly and uncomfortably shocked and embarrassed by her at the end of the show. I felt so bad for her daughters. I don't know if that youngest girl was her daughter or granddaughter, but she was really traumatized by crazy lady's return home.

For the record...

How does Kansas academic achievement rank when compared to other states.

MATH...

12% of Kansas students are below basic, 41% basic, 39% proficient, 8% advanced.

Unless one is willing to skew and spin the numbers, Kansas ranks among the best, surpassed by Massachusetts with only 9 percent below basic and surpassed by none with more than 8% advanced.

READING...

Kansas seems to be slightly below the median.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/s0023.asp?printver=

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/s0021.asp?printver=

Hey ebony,

Do you have the science numbers? That is what we're talking about after all.

I guess I could just google that myself.

r4d

I think they only do report cards on math and reading/language. But if you find anything on science, please share.

Ebonyfax... so?

Alright, let's say they're taught how to spell and count adequatly.
Does that excuse the fact that they're being taught that a certain
mythological story is fact?

OFF TOPIC....This one's for you reluctant....almost as good as the myth of seperation of church and state.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

It'd be great! Imagine!
Me as a teacher!
As long as I taught the little tykes how to sloppily put their name on a contract, I'd be free to induct 'em into the worship of the deity of my choice!
I'd choose Nyarlathotep, I think.

So basically 4 major events yesterday.

1. Gay marriage banned in Texas.
2. ID passed in Kansas.
3. ID rejected in Penn.
4. Hand guns outlawed in San Fran.

Only one is in direct violation of the constitution. But more important, if this is what the people voted for then so be it.

If you disagree with it then don't move there. Why force your views or morality on those that view differently?

Whatever happened to the "prochoice" crowd? Those in these 4 areas have voted. Our government is by the people for the people. It will be interesting to see who brings the courts in first to overthrow the will of the people.

phreedm, as a non-U.S. citizen, yet one whose government supported and aided the invasion of Iraq, I gotta say:
Most of those sorta books, wether republican/democrat/other carry no weight except among the converted.
Why?
Let me use yer link as an example:
If the U.S. REALLY found undeniable proof of WMD's in Iraq...
Wouldn't that have been broadcast and then happily received via several U.S. presidential statements?
Oh, it hasn't?
Why that MUST be undeniable proof then of the "liberal media bias".

Indeed!

2. ID passed in Kansas.
3. ID rejected in Penn.

So... as long as people -vote- for something and get a majority it can't be -wrong-?

Basically, to accept ID you have to accept the existence of a god/godess/gods/godesses/whatevermixyoumayprefer.

ID is a theory, yes, but so is my claim that aliens jump-started human development.

Yet none of those are -scientific- theories.

The title of Phreedm's reference really says it all Disinformation.

Sounds like conspiracy theory 101 to this simpleton.

phreedm, prove to me, beyond any question or doubt, that a God, however you define such, created the earth and every species exactly as they appear today, and that he/she/it did so within as day.
I dare ya.

Within a week, I meant.
Not that it makes much difference,
the lunacy of the claim is self-evident unless countered with a direct proclamation from the Almighty.
But I'm sure phreedm will arragne THAT conference-call.

Pardon my injecting FACT into your universe, phreedm

ID did not "pass" in KS as if it were some kind of referendum. An elected State School Board adopted ID as a part of the science standards for the state on a 6:4 vote of the 10-member board.

Now, a word from Mr. Stevie Wonder about the majority of this subject area:

Very superstitious, writing’s on the wall,
Very superstitious, ladders bout’ to fall,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin’ glass
Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past.

When you believe in things that you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way

Very superstitious, wash your face and hands,
Rid me of the problem, do all that you can,
Keep me in a daydream, keep me goin’ strong,
You don’t wanna save me, sad is my song.

When you believe in things that you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way, yeh, yeh.

Very superstitious, nothin’ more to say,
Very superstitious, the devil’s on his way,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin’ glass,
Seven years of bad luck, good things in your past

When you believe in things that you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way, no, no, no

Going back to a comment made by phreedm:

If you as atheists do not believe in a Creator, therefore can not agree with the Dec. of Indpendence statement that we are endowed with certain rights from the Creator, "Where do our rights originate from"?

I think if you continue to read the Declaration of Independence, you will find the answer to "Where do our rights originate from?"

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I take this to mean that the government gets its power to grant these rights FROM THE PEOPLE of our country. Am I correct? Maybe Darrow can verify.

P.S. I have a copy of the D of I, and the Constitution in my library. I think every American should have these documents in their homes - and read them! (I downloaded mine from the internet - cheap!)

Comment from: HairlessMonkeyDK [Member]
phreedm, prove to me, beyond any question or doubt, that a God, however you define such, created the earth and every species exactly as they appear today, and that he/she/it did so within as day.
I dare ya."

Why should I?

phreedm:
Hey thanks. A book?! It's written down?! Oh, hey, you've converted me! Whatever was I thinking?

So all the information we have is the result of a left-wing conspiracy?

Oh, honky, pleeeaaasssse!

Let's skip Scott Ritter's testimony. Or the UN inspectors. The non-corroboration of Powell's testimony to the UN via 2nd hand correlation. Oh, lessee, let's also skip the (VERY) tenuous link between AQ & Iwreck. Or that the gassing in Hubuljra was done by Iran.

Oh, & Shrub's dubious track record of lying (oops! let's reframe that: his habit of 'disinforming').

'Worst president EVER!' (paraphrased from Jeff Albertson, AKA the 'Comic Book guy').

Stop watching Fox. They're not journalists. They're talking heads, & they do this country a disservice.

I prefer facts, not commentary.

"Comment from: pixel [Member]
I think if you continue to read the Declaration of Independence, you will find the answer to "Where do our rights originate from?"

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

No, to "Secure these rights". Government gets it's power from the people to "Secure the rights endowed by their Creator".

Do you teach your kids that the D of I is a founding document?

Thomas Jefferson gets credit for penning the D of I. Each man gets certain rights from their Creator. Not the government or state. This was an historical idea even though one can trace the ideas back to the Magna Carta.

What are these rights? Life, liberty and the pursut of happiness.
Many on this board state the right to "life" comes from the state..??!!!

I was sincere in asking how an atheist gets around the D of I and some of the responses are of no surprise. One does have to do mental gymnastics to believe that those claiming certain rights come from the Creator would do a 180, 12 years later and write the constitution. But that's a different discussion.

So, do you teach the Dec of Independence as a founding document?

phreedm

That link...you can't seriously believe it, or expect us to believe it? If any of it were true, Dick and Dubya would have had t-shirts printed with the locations of the findings on the front and "I told you so!" on the back. They could have sold enough shirts to thr RR and all the neo-cons to finance flak jackets for every US soldier in Iraq.

"Comment from: phreedm [Member]
Comment from: HairlessMonkeyDK [Member]
phreedm, prove to me, beyond any question or doubt, that a God, however you define such, created the earth and every species exactly as they appear today, and that he/she/it did so within as day.
I dare ya."

Why should I? "

Well, I MUST say I find your answer intriguing, CagedOne.
Why?
Becuase it seems to imply you COULD do so, were you willing.
And if you're -not- willing, as your answer suggests, then aren't you withholding from a fellow mortal sinner the forgiveness and wonder that is God's love?
And if you are, won't you, CagedOne, then fry forever?

Go on, CagedOne, let me see you squirm out of this in a truly casuist manner worthy of any jesuit.
Circular arguments ahead!

phreedm

"Secure the rights endowed by their Creator".

I actually have two creators: My mom and my dad. They endowed me with certain unalienable rights., as did their moms and dads before them, etc. My husband and i passed them on to our kids, who are already passing them on to their kids.

karen, give it up.
He's like Darth Vader.
He'll only reconsider when the wounds are so great the mask won't matter anymore.
(Sheeps and shepherds!
This from me who can't stand Staw-Wars Nerds!)

"Comment from: reluctantatheist [Member] · http://www.reluctantatheist.com

Oh, & Shrub's dubious track record of lying (oops! let's reframe that: his habit of 'disinforming')."

You disappoint me. Bush didn't say anything different then Clinton, Gore, Carey, Kennedy. So tell me, why is it only a lie when Bush says it?

HMDK

(Sheeps and shepherds!
This from me who can't stand Staw-Wars Nerds!)

Aha! Another commonality between us.

I feel the distance between DK and USA shrinking. To no avail. I am still married and have a daughter your age. A fiery red-head, she be. Oh, life sucketh.

I'll give up on phreedm and you give up on Tim. He'll never answer to your satifaction, if at all.