Quantcast The Daily Eastern News
College Media Network

Column: McCain goes off the bridge to nowhere

Abstract:
Over the weekend, we have all been getting acquainted with John McCain's surprise pick for vice president, Sarah Palin - in some cases, more acquainted than many of us would like. Nevertheless, I believe a few choice items do merit repeating. It is worth mentioning that little more than a year and a half ago, Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska - a tiny hamlet outside of Anchorage with a population of 5,000 people....

  • Displaying 1 - 49 of 49

Faculty Member

posted 9/03/08 @ 8:15 AM CST

To be accurate, George W. did show his ignorance, again, on television when he said "we" should "teach the controversy" when it came to teaching creationism in the science classroom. As a scientist, I can state that there IS NO CONTROVERSY. Science is science. It is testable and falsifiable. Creationism is neither. It is theology.
Post a reply to this comment

Hippies smell

posted 9/03/08 @ 2:48 PM CST

To be accurate, hippies smell... and President Bush isn't running for office.

/q.e.d.

Now kindly stop abetting this noxious campaign to smear Mrs. Palin and her family.
Post a reply to this comment

Matthew R. Casner

posted 9/03/08 @ 7:38 PM CST

Originally posted by

Faculty Member

 To be accurate, George W. did show his ignorance, again, on television when he said "we" should "teach the controversy" when it came to teaching creationism in the science classroom. As a scientist, I can state that there IS NO CONTROVERSY. Science is science. It is testable and falsifiable. Creationism is neither. It is theology.


Are you telling me there is such a thing as observable reality? No effing way. My insane beliefs DEMAND your respect.
Post a reply to this comment

FlaLady

posted 9/03/08 @ 10:23 AM CST

Matthew, I am appalled. Are you actually quoting The Daily Kos? If so, you should subtitle your blogs with 'ardent radical-leftist'. Please try to be a little objective. As you know, being a follower of Obama, it was several days before he received any 'bounce' in the polls after his VP pick and the Democratic National Convention. I'm sure you'll post another article pointing out that McCain has risen in the polls in a few days.
Also, please consider that Obama has no real experience as a Presidential candidate (God forbid). Running for President doesn't count. And, if you are going after Palin (a uterus?) for creationism, please consider Obama's black liberation theology. Talk about having no scientific basis! Anyway, let's listen to McCain and Obama talk about the issues. I'm sure that's what's important to you, isn't it?
Post a reply to this comment

Matthew R. Casner

posted 9/03/08 @ 7:03 PM CST

Originally posted by

FlaLady

 Matthew, I am appalled. Are you actually quoting The Daily Kos? If so, you should subtitle your blogs with 'ardent radical-leftist'.


The only thing I said about the Daily Kos was that rumors were "percolating up" from its depths. And since you do not seem to be disputing that statement, I'm afraid I don't see what point you are trying to make.

As for me being an ardent, radical leftist, maybe it has not occurred to you before that an opinion column, or at least one worth reading, is usually written by someone who has strong opinions. I will speak to the Opinions editor about affixing that eponym to my information, though, in order to avoid any consternation on your behalf in the future.
Post a reply to this comment

AssPress: Palin has not pushed creationism as governor

posted 9/03/08 @ 2:16 PM CST

Matthew: If you want to fling smears like "expressed her support for teaching 'creation science' in public schools.", you may want to actually cite a reliable source or two. I know this is just an opinion column; but folks could also run around saying "Barry Soetoro raped goats while visiting his half-brother George in Kenya." No one would take that seriously without some evidence.

Even the AssPress (hyperlinked above) recognizes this as a Leftist smear campaign.

You don't have to like Sarah Palin or John McCain, but making things up about them (or parrotting these fabrications) is fairly stupid-- and negates your arguments.

[Exit Question: If all the "facts" you know about a candidate are fabricated, aren't you just ignorant?]
Post a reply to this comment

Matthew R. Casner

posted 9/03/08 @ 7:05 PM CST

Originally posted by

AssPress: Palin has not pushed creationism as governor

 Matthew: If you want to fling smears like "expressed her support for teaching 'creation science' in public schools.", you may want to actually cite a reliable source or two. I know this is just an opinion column; but folks could also run around saying "Barry Soetoro raped goats while visiting his half-brother George in Kenya." No one would take that seriously without some evidence.

Even the AssPress (hyperlinked above) recognizes this as a Leftist smear campaign.

You don't have to like Sarah Palin or John McCain, but making things up about them (or parrotting these fabrications) is fairly stupid-- and negates your arguments.

[Exit Question: If all the "facts" you know about a candidate are fabricated, aren't you just ignorant?]


If you could point out specifically which statements I made were fabrications, that would be helpful.
Post a reply to this comment

Evidence: Matt's "creationism" smear doesn't hold water

posted 9/04/08 @ 7:55 AM CST

Originally posted by

AssPress: Palin has not pushed creationism as governor

 Matthew whined: If you could point out specifically which statements I made were fabrications, that would be helpful. If you want to fling smears like "expressed her support for teaching 'creation science' in public schools.", you may want to actually cite a reliable source or two. I know this is just an opinion column; but folks could also run around saying "Barry Soetoro raped goats while visiting his half-brother George in Kenya." No one would take that seriously without some evidence.

Even the AssPress (hyperlinked above) recognizes this as a Leftist smear campaign.

You don't have to like Sarah Palin or John McCain, but making things up about them (or parrotting these fabrications) is fairly stupid-- and negates your arguments.

[Exit Question: If all the "facts" you know about a candidate are fabricated, aren't you just ignorant?]
Do you need a remedial reading comprehension class? As cited above: if you want to fling smears like "expressed her support for teaching 'creation science' in public schools.", you may want to actually cite a reliable source or two.

Readers breathlessly await your evidence to support that fabrication. Remember Matt, your credibility is at stake.

This orchestrated attempt to smear the honorable Governor is now permamently stored at Lexis-Nexis. I suggest the DEN editors submit a correction and Matt issue an apology for his next DEN column.
Post a reply to this comment

Matthew R. Casner

posted 9/04/08 @ 2:41 PM CST

Perhaps you should set aside time for a reading comprehension test for yourself. I did not say Palin "pushed" creation science - I said she had "expressed her support" for teaching creation science. That is a matter of public record, as noted by TIME Magazine here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1837523_1837531_1837538,00.html

Should I now expect an apology from you?
Post a reply to this comment

We HATE you, Sarah Palin

posted 9/03/08 @ 2:19 PM CST

Where does she get off thinking she can be vice president of the United States? Up against the one million years in the Senate her opponent, Joe Biden, has logged in between expensive rides at taxpayer expense on the Acela, what can she offer? Mayor of a town of six people and ten caribou [sneer]? Miss Congeniality [sneer, sneer]? Illegitimate-child baby-grandma [sneer, sneer, sneer]? Poster chick for "family values" [sneer, sneer, sneer, sneer]?

Sorry, I'm running out of sneers.

But, seriously, just look at the negatives: she's a popular first-term governor, she's a woman, she's happily married, she has five kids, one of them with Down's syndrome, she's a maverick, she's from way beyond the Beltway, she's taken on both the Republican Party and Big Oil, she shoots automatic weapons, she can kill a moose with a butter knife and fillet a sea lion with a smile, her husband's a roustabout Eskimo snowmobile champ, she's a hockey mom, she was Miss Wasilla, she looks like she should be playing Cecily, the saucy librarian, in Tom Stoppard's Travesties, and she doesn't wear pantsuits. Heck, she hasn't even appeared yet on Meet the Press! I mean, who in his right mind would vote for her?

Sure, if she were one of ours, not only would we have nominated her by acclamation, since she fulfills every trope of feminism except for her unfortunate and inexplicable opposition to murdering unborn children, we would also have made at least two TV movies about her life, celebrating her choice to have her fifth child and the announcement yesterday that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and is going to marry the teenage father of her child. That's the kind of heartwarming, inclusive, empowering story we love -- she's like Juno come to life as Juneau, set in Mystery, Alaska.

But she's not a Democrat, which despite her va-va-va-voom appearance, means she's not really a woman, which is one of the reasons we've spent the past four days since McCain unveiled her trying to tear her limb from limb. Just because she's the governor of a state sandwiched between two obscure and unimportant countries, Canada and Russia, and spent more time in her first five minutes visiting American troops in Iraq than Evita Barry did during his entire Rainbow Tour, what could she possibly know about foreign policy? It's not like she's John Edwards or something.

So that's why we're having our Wellstone Funeral Moment at the moment. We mean well; we promised ourselves we wouldn't go over the top with our outright loathing of the Neanderthals who preach "Christian" values while practicing Wiccanism and child sacrifice and who hate black people and gay people and want to destroy the environment just because they can, and want to amass more money than even John Kerry or Jon Corzine or Herb Kohl or Jay Rockefeller or Dianne Feinstein -- the five richest senators -- or Ted Kennedy or John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi have. That, usually, is the Kos Kidz's job. Along with speculating exactly how Bush got from My Pet Goat to planting the depth charges that blew up the levees in New Orleans.

But sometimes the mask slips and you can see -- whoops! -- how much we hate you. Normally we're against hate in all its forms, and embrace tolerance as one of our defining moral attributes. But when it comes to you conservatives, well, with the best will in the world, we just can't tolerate you. You're elitist, you're judgmental, you're hypocritical, and we know that deep down you hate us even more than we hate you. Therefore, by any means necessary, we will defeat you this fall. Voter fraud, "walking around" money, legions of lawyers, as many recounts as it takes -- bring it on!

Because we need to take back our country. We need to take it back from fascists like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and give it back to its rightful proprietors, patriots like Henry Wallace, Sidney Hillman, Norman Thomas, Gus Hall, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Saul Alinsky, William Kunstler, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Bobby Seale, and, yes, my guy, the Talking Parrot, you know who.

And Sarah Marshall Palin stands in the way of all that. After we sent Bill n' Hill packing with their twin gold watches in Denver, we thought we had a clear playing field. The sunshine of the uplands was ours. Mother Gaia had opened wide her arms to embrace us, shunning the Orcs and the Uruk-hai of the Anti-Slavery, Anti-Segregation, Anti-Secularism, Anti-Sedition and Anti-Surrender Party. We were going up against Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, Herbert Hoover and Whoever, Daddy Bush and Dan Quayle, Gerald R. Ford and, well, Bob Dole.

Piece of cake, walk on the beach, a Renaissance Weekend in a non-denominational heaven for atheists. Until Sarah Marshall Palin showed up, bringing with her 10 million bucks for the bad guys in three days, a level of enthusiasm not seen since Ronnie was a pup, and a clear shot to Republican dominance with her and Bobby Jindal and whatever seduced and corrupted minority group is coming next for eons to come.

So that's why we hate you, Sarah Marshall Palin. We hate you because you remind the other side of their wives, their girlfriends, their daughters, and make them want to fight for you against our sneers and our smears. We hate you because you're smart and accomplished and didn't make your bones on the back of Monica Lewinsky. We hate you because you've made us forget that our last two candidates for vice president were Joe Lieberman and John Edwards, whoever they were.

We hate you because you're smart and beautiful and we wish we had women like you on our side.

We hate you.
Post a reply to this comment

Matthew R. Casner

posted 9/03/08 @ 7:12 PM CST

Regarding "We Hate Sarah Palin":

Thanks for taking the time to post such a carefully crafted rebuttal. I would love to respond point by point, but when I think about it, the only statements I really need to make are these:

1. I happen to think that rape victims should not be forced to carry their attackers' children.

2. Creationism is organized ignorance.

3. Someone who denies global warming does not have the rationality required to be President.

4. There is nothing so wrong with gay people that they deserve to be discriminated against.

5. I would not have supported Palin even if statements 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not true, because in my humble opinion, someone who 20 months ago was the mayor of a town half the size of this university is dangerously unqualified to be President should the need arise.

Thanks again!
Post a reply to this comment

Rick Baker, Alumni

posted 9/03/08 @ 3:54 PM CST

To the author of "We Hate You...":
This is the best rebuttal of ANYTHING ever written in the DEN. In fact , this may be the best thing to ever appear in the DEN in any form. I have nothing to add to your pointed and well crafted commentary other than BRAVO !
Post a reply to this comment

One voice of reason

posted 9/03/08 @ 4:20 PM CST

John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin -- reckless, cynical, thoroughly political, made without careful investigation, a "gut" choice -- lets us know all we need to know about how he would govern. I want no part of it.

If I hear either of these people described as a "maverick" again (talk about meaningless cliches!), I am going to throw up all over a moose.
Post a reply to this comment

Christian conservative

posted 9/03/08 @ 8:31 PM CST

First, Mr. Casner, allow me to respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with you. Mrs. Palin's views on abortion are not outside of the conservative evangelical voting bloc, at least among those who are truly conservative evangelicals. Also, creation science, as you call it, is a plausible and PROVEN way of explaining how the world began. Simply read Genesis Chapter 1 for a crash course, and then search for Ken Ham to obtain scientific facts to back creationism up. Getting back to the subject, there is no plausible reason for why creationism cannot be taught alongside evolution in school, at least for comparison's sake.

Finally, I merely suggest that you obtain information from other sources than the Daily Kos or the New York Times or MoveOn.org for that matter. I believe the election of 2004 showed one thing: one cannot simply trust polls, except for the actual vote. The exit polls and media polls in that election proclaimed that John Kerry would win the election, only to be proven wrong when America stood up and said "We believe in George W. Bush." He hasn't always been perfect. NOBODY EVER IS. Therefore, if nobody is perfect, then neither is John McCain or Barack Obama, and for that matter, neither was Abraham Lincoln.
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/03/08 @ 10:09 PM CST

Are you sure we should read just Chapter One of Genesis? Because Chapter Two gives a very different account of creation. The sequence of events differs; human life is created in a different way; the man and woman are created at different times. You can execute any moves you want to make the stories jibe, but they are two stories, different accounts, separated by centuries. These matters are basic knowledge for anyone who reads the Bible in a scholarly or semi-scholarly way.

Word: The creation stories in Genesis are stories. They were not meant nor were they understood as a scientific account of how life began. These stories are among many creation stories from ancient "Middle East."

Oh -- and if Adam and Eve had two sons, where did their wives come from?
Post a reply to this comment

Kyle Mayhugh

posted 9/04/08 @ 7:48 AM CST

"Oh -- and if Adam and Eve had two sons, where did their wives come from?"

If you honestly want to pose that question, it's clear you haven't done as much research into Genesis as you claimed. All other issues aside, you really showed your ignorance there.
Post a reply to this comment

S.R. Jones

posted 9/04/08 @ 8:12 AM CST

Casner is clearly a left-wing schill. Both his column and his commentary thereafter denote DNC and Daily Koz talking points. He half-hazardly mingles unrelated arguments in an all-too-common attempt at smearing a Republican candidate for Vice President.

Casner, ala Happy Gilmore, you are awarded no points for either your opinion piece or your follow up commentary. Everyone who read them is now dumber for having done so. May God have mercy upon your soul.

I sincerely hope you someday do your own independent critical analysis of some of the things you espouse. Neither end of the spectrum has a deadlock on truth.
Post a reply to this comment

Faculty Member

posted 9/04/08 @ 9:58 AM CST

If "Christian Conservative" had read my comment, s/he would see that there is a VERY "plausible" reason for not teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design (or whatever the current buz-word is) alongside Evolution. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science; it is theology. Should our science teachers also be taking time to teach basketweaving in their science class?
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/04/08 @ 2:14 PM CST

Originally posted by

Faculty Member

 If "Christian Conservative" had read my comment, s/he would see that there is a VERY "plausible" reason for not teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design (or whatever the current buz-word is) alongside Evolution. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science; it is theology. Should our science teachers also be taking time to teach basketweaving in their science class?


Dear Faculty Member,

I did read your post, thank you very much. It is part of what made me want to post in the first place, because I most respectfully disagree with you. Creationism is part theology, but it is also proven science. If evolution is THE way the world came to be and how everything is set up in our world, then why haven't evolution-believing scientists all been able to agree on how the world began? There are many more evolutionary theories out there than the Big Bang.

P.S. I am "Christian Conservative," and am now a member with a different name. Just to clear up any confusion.
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/04/08 @ 1:21 PM CST

I didn't claim research. My knowledge is relatively slight. But I do know that the text says that A & E had sons. It does not mention other children. So where do women come from? If you claim other children, unnamed in the text, you're being less than literal. And why would there be female children, unnamed? For the same reason that Noah's wife has no name: because the story is of course the work of a patriarchal culture. It's a story, not science.

And what about the different accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/04/08 @ 1:26 PM CST

Genesis 4:17: where'd the woman come from? Only Cain and Abel have been born.

Repeat: It's a story.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/04/08 @ 2:18 PM CST

Originally posted by

Which chapter of Genesis?

 Genesis 4:17: where'd the woman come from? Only Cain and Abel have been born.

Repeat: It's a story.


A true story. I'm not being hypocritical here, but there are plenty of events and occurences throughout history that only God knows how they happened.
Post a reply to this comment

S. Casner

posted 9/04/08 @ 3:07 PM CST

Ok, in all the years I've voted... I've never had the opportunity to vote based on my sex drive... I plan to administer that this year, as that reviewing the candidates based on other criteria has paid few dividends.... Being as that they rarely stick to their campaign promises anyway..... So join me, matt, vote republican, at least we'll have "eye candy" as we plunge deeper into war and economic disaster. Lord willing she'll be as easy as her daughter...

p.s. left wing, right wing, is there another choice and still be American. I hope so because as a vet and still firm holding to my patriotism.... Often I feel in the basement.... Anyway, Matt keep up the good work, our differences, our exploration of them, and our ability to voice them is why this is the place to be... back to work for me

later
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/04/08 @ 4:28 PM CST

Then which chapter of Genesis has the true account of creation? Which sequence of events is the right one?

To claim that the Bible has the answers to all questions and to then beg off with "only God knows" shows the difficulty of trying to read the Bible as a historical and scientific document. It's stories, of all kinds, poetry, allegory, philosophy, saga. Bart Ehrman's books make clear the problems in trying to take the Bible as literal, inerrant truth.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/04/08 @ 5:51 PM CST

Originally posted by

Which chapter of Genesis?

 Then which chapter of Genesis has the true account of creation? Which sequence of events is the right one?

To claim that the Bible has the answers to all questions and to then beg off with "only God knows" shows the difficulty of trying to read the Bible as a historical and scientific document. It's stories, of all kinds, poetry, allegory, philosophy, saga. Bart Ehrman's books make clear the problems in trying to take the Bible as literal, inerrant truth.


It's not any one chapter, it's almost the entire book of Genesis. You appear to be looking at Genesis as if the book is made up of separate accounts and stories, when in fact they all follow the same continuing story line. And as for "only God knows," it's called faith. Anyone can have faith that God will take care of all things, because He has taken care of all things throughout history, and He will take care of all things until the end of time. Faith is a fundamental part of Christianity. Faith is necessary because we simply cannot know everything, and logic is not a 100% back-up.
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/04/08 @ 6:23 PM CST

The point remains: the first two chapters of Genesis give two different accounts of creation. It's obvious to anyone who reads them with open eyes. They are separated by several centuries. They are linguistically distinct. And their accounts don't jibe.

I will point out again, that no one has offered a genuine answer to the questions I've posed.

Faith incidentally is not synonymous with taking the Bible as literally true (or with any one religious tradition). And many people of faith find it impossible to believe that God is "behind" historical events, pulling strings -- whether it's the Holocaust or the war in Iraq or a particular politician's career. Free will and all that.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/04/08 @ 9:00 PM CST

Honest question: what Bible are you reading? If you are depending on one man's books, then I'm afraid you are not studying the subject well enough. I will assume though that you have read the Bible since your posts lean more heavily towards that. I see how one could be confused between chapter 1 and 2, for example: Genesis 1:27 states "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." And then in Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord god formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." And the rest of the chapter tells the story of how Eve came to be.

Understandable about how it's confusing. However, the separation by centuries does not fit because Chapter 1 ends on the 6th day of the Earth's existence, and Chapter 2 talks about the 7th day, so (taken literally) there is no gap of time in between the chapters.

Next, what I just posted came from a New King James Version of the Bible. My New International Version has a subheading that provides a little clearer image of how the accounts can be separated. In Genesis 2:4 (NIV), the verse reads "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." The NKJV of that same verse says, "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The basic difference is two prepositions; one is more general and one is more specific.

To be honest, the many translations of the Bible are a huge cause of confusion for many people in understanding Biblical passages, and the NIV does give a more straightforward explanation in it's text, while the NKJV does read a little more like a history book in this instance. However, what translation a Bible is does not take away from the fact that the Bible is true, and among most of the translations, the basic message of God is presented. This is very off-topic, but it's a reply. Sorry to the administrators if this is considered clutter.
Post a reply to this comment

Which chapter of Genesis?

posted 9/04/08 @ 9:36 PM CST

I appreciate your effort to explain what seems to you indisputably true.

But the fact remains: the stories give different accounts. The sequence of events differs. In the first chapter (more recent), creation is a matter of powerful speech. In the second, the creation of the man is like the work of a potter. Chapter one, the man and woman are created at the same time. Chapter two, the woman is created later, after various animals. The stories are linguistically different (in the original). They use different names for God. Why ancient writers chose to include two accounts is a fascinating question. These matters are common knowledge in any critical study of the Bible, but obvious too to anyone who reads the chapters in translation with an open mind.
Post a reply to this comment

J

posted 9/04/08 @ 10:16 PM CST

GSane, It's a little disingenuous when you talk of Faith on one hand, then say the Bible is true on the other. If the bible is true then why do you need faith?


Hopefully, your faith doesn't lead you into temptation. Temptation like Mark 16:18 (they will pick up snakes with their hands; even if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them; and they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover.").
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/05/08 @ 11:36 AM CST

Originally posted by

J

 GSane, It's a little disingenuous when you talk of Faith on one hand, then say the Bible is true on the other. If the bible is true then why do you need faith?


Hopefully, your faith doesn't lead you into temptation. Temptation like Mark 16:18 (they will pick up snakes with their hands; even if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them; and they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover.").


As for picking up snakes, Acts 28:3-6. Tempatation? Mark 16:18 is a part of the Great Commission. How does that talk about temptation?

As for faith: The Bible says we need faith. 2 Chronicles 20:20, 2 Corinthians 5:7, and Galatians 2:17 & 20 are just a few examples.
Post a reply to this comment

Brandon

posted 9/05/08 @ 6:09 AM CST

Why don't the Democrats just make abortion illegal? It's still legal in Canada and Mexico. Then the Republicans will have nothing left to run a platform on. Also who do you know thats had an abortion...maybe one person? I know 2o families that have economical problems based on conservative policies. It's also pretty funny how these "christians" pick and choose things out of the bible to suit there needs. If every conservative lived by levitical law, Red Lobster would shut down on the weekends. I also think it's funny McCain gave a speech about ending Republican corruption tonight at the RNC. Just look at McCain's ties to Ralph Reed a "conservative christian" to see how un-corruptible he is!
My favorite bible quote is....
And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died."

Unbeliveable...these Big government jerks after hearing this amazing quote were actually still against slavery!?!? Didn't Lincoln realize the bible was absolute? HMMM weird.
Post a reply to this comment

S.C.

posted 9/05/08 @ 7:13 AM CST

And here I was under the impression that the Constitution Of The United States was written with Amendments that will separate Church and State. In my opinion, religion should not matter when it comes to running the government, and there should be no need to mention Biblical phrases to make any political points. Religion should be considered a personal belief, individual to each person, and it shouldn't matter what one person believes in or what church they go to or don't go to. This is the 21st century folks, not the 12th. Freedom of religion is not taken at its meaning, nor is it taken literally. Too many people are attempting to force their individual religions down other people's throats, attempting to "save them" from their sins. Get a life people, and let other people live their own lives. Stop trying to run everyone else's lives for them. It's no wonder we are in such a screwed up society.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/05/08 @ 11:45 AM CST

I can only present so much, but Brandon: Levitical law was put in place by God for God's people, but after Jesus came and did what He came to do, Levitical law became obsolete as LAW. Levitical law is a good guide about how God says things should be done in some cases.

S.C.: Christians should not be trying to run other people's lives, it's against our beliefs. If some are, I apologize, because that's not how Jesus lived.
Post a reply to this comment

Respectable

posted 9/05/08 @ 1:12 PM CST

Originally posted by

GSane

 I can only present so much, but Brandon: Levitical law was put in place by God for God's people, but after Jesus came and did what He came to do, Levitical law became obsolete as LAW. Levitical law is a good guide about how God says things should be done in some cases.

S.C.: Christians should not be trying to run other people's lives, it's against our beliefs. If some are, I apologize, because that's not how Jesus lived.


I agree with your addition. This is exactly why creationism shouldn't be taught in school. If we taught Christian creationism, we would have to teach the idea that earth might have been populated by Venusians, or the concept of karma, reincarnation and any other theological idea. However, the point is, these things are not science. Even if science is wrong and creationism is right, the scientific process has not ever verified creationism -- in fact, the more information science tests, the less valid creationism becomes.
Like I said, regardless of which is right, creationism is not science.
Post a reply to this comment

S.C.

posted 9/05/08 @ 12:22 PM CST

GSane:

While in your mind Christians are not trying to run other people's lives, why on this Blue Earth are almost all of them trying to convert those who do not believe in their God, in order to proverbially "Save them" from their sins? That is what Church is based on, from what I have seen, that is how they make their coffers full with donations, a tax-free scam if you ask me, but that's a whole 'nother animal. For instance, I have been told more than once by Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Episcopals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on and so forth that if I do not believe in their God or their preachings, I will be going to their Hell as a result. I was born into a Jewish family, and if my recollection is correct, all people of the Christian variety are praising the Jewish carpenter named Jesus Christ as the son of God. so why do I have to deal with everyone trying to "Save My Soul?" I will believe what I want to believe, and I quite honestly don't give a royal rat's rear end what other people believe in, as long as they leave me to have what faith I do have. If people want to know more about what I believe in, then I am more than willing to give them some information, but I will not attempt to convert anyone to what I believe in, because it is what I believe in, not what anyone else believes in.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/05/08 @ 2:06 PM CST

Those are your beliefs, S.C. As for Christians trying to convert every human being: Mark 16:15-20. We're commanded to do so, and while we try really hard to convert people, we can't make the decision for people. It is all YOUR decision to do what you want to do and follow what faith you want to follow.

As for the multiple religions telling you "You'll go to Hell if you don't follow our way!" It is a result of (I'm going theological, but bear with me) Satan causing confusion so people cannot find the way the Jesus Christ (Who is the ONLY way). But again, I nor anyone else cannot make a decision for you. You say you were raised in Judaism, and you are passive about spreading your beliefs. That is okay. You have that right, and I honestly cannot conclude this post without going into a long discussion, so I will leave it there.
Post a reply to this comment

S.C.

posted 9/05/08 @ 4:03 PM CST

Originally posted by

GSane

 Those are your beliefs, S.C. As for Christians trying to convert every human being: Mark 16:15-20. We're commanded to do so, and while we try really hard to convert people, we can't make the decision for people. It is all YOUR decision to do what you want to do and follow what faith you want to follow.

As for the multiple religions telling you "You'll go to Hell if you don't follow our way!" It is a result of (I'm going theological, but bear with me) Satan causing confusion so people cannot find the way the Jesus Christ (Who is the ONLY way). But again, I nor anyone else cannot make a decision for you. You say you were raised in Judaism, and you are passive about spreading your beliefs. That is okay. You have that right, and I honestly cannot conclude this post without going into a long discussion, so I will leave it there.


I don't know where you think I was raised in Judaism, as I said I was born into a Jewish family, but I never said raised in Judaism. There actually happens to be a difference there. While I was being raised, I was given the freedom to choose my own religion by studying all of the religions I had any interest in. I studied them all...read the Bible from cover to cover, studied Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and various other religions, and made my mind up on what I wanted to believe, and it wasn't any of the religions I have already posted in here.

I believe I have a purpose on this planet, and until I figure out what that purpose is, I more than likely won't be going anywhere for a while.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/05/08 @ 2:11 PM CST

And to Respectable, I do say, regrettably, I have to agree with you. In today's world, or more specifically today's America, creationism could not be allowed to be taught without teaching other aspects of how the world was created and other theological ideas. However, I have to disagree over science. Creationism has been proven with science, and there is A LOT of archeological evidence to back up aspects of the ancient Biblical world. If you want a resource: www.answersingenesis.org should provide a lot of evidence, and comparisons with evolution.
Post a reply to this comment

it's my first election! great.......

posted 9/05/08 @ 7:32 PM CST

Did anyone else notice that when McCain made a statement about teaching an illiterate adult how to read that the next person on camera was a person holding a sign that had MAVERICK misspelled at MAVRICK????? I hope McCain's supporters filled out their voter registration cards better just so he can actuallly have a chance.....
Post a reply to this comment

I'm not the only one

posted 9/05/08 @ 7:45 PM CST

Originally posted by

it's my first election! great.......

 Did anyone else notice that when McCain made a statement about teaching an illiterate adult how to read that the next person on camera was a person holding a sign that had MAVERICK misspelled at MAVRICK????? I hope McCain's supporters filled out their voter registration cards better just so he can actuallly have a chance.....


I thought he may have spelled MAVERICK as MAVRICK on purpose.... thought it was supposed to have some point..... that is so funny.... the cameraman must have been a democrat.... Obama '08!!!!!
Post a reply to this comment

J

posted 9/05/08 @ 7:36 PM CST

Everyone keeps confusing Evolution and Creationism as though they were mutually exclusive. Creationism tries to explain how life began. Evolution Theory tries to explain how life was formed AFTER creation.

It's entirely possible that God created Evolution.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/06/08 @ 12:00 AM CST

HUH??? Forgive me J, but Genesis tells more about how the human race came into essential existence after the Creation, and it was not done through evolution.
Post a reply to this comment

J

posted 9/06/08 @ 12:44 AM CST

GSane,

Come on, you've got to be kidding. Genesis talks about light and darkness on the SECOND day and the creation of the sun and moon on the FOURTH day. There's this roundish thing we live on that kind of rotates around this big gaseous thing that creates light and darkness.

Of course, you're bound to come up with the standard "God can do anything He wants, He's God." How do we know He's God(insert standard circular argument)? Because the Bible says He is. How can we believe in the Bible? Because God wrote it.

Look, I'll explain again so there aren't any "huh's???" Creationism (note the root word creation) is about how the world was CREATED. Evolution Theory (you know....insects becoming resistant to pesticides, bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin, all examples of micro-evolution), tries to theorize about how life formed SINCE creation.

There isn't anything in the Theory of Evolution that tries to explain how life got here in the first place.

However, I can tell you the answer to the age-old question, which came first the chicken or the egg?

Dinosaur eggs were around thousands of years before G. Gallus Domesticus evolved into chickens.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/06/08 @ 11:20 AM CST

J, the argument does appear circular, but that is where faith comes into play. There just simply things that happen that have no logic in them whatsoever, unless faith is applied. From a spiritual point of view, not physical, God radiates light and therefore gives a separation between light and dark. Since He is all-powerful, shouldn't He therefore also be able to give a physical separation between light and dark before he creates actual parameters for them?
Post a reply to this comment

Sorry

posted 9/09/08 @ 2:16 PM CST

GSane, it seems you are trying to have it both ways, first saying that creationism is proven science, but then when an discrepancy is shown, responding with "That's where faith comes into play." Faith doesn't come into play where science is concerned.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/09/08 @ 6:28 PM CST

It does for me, and for many other scientists who are Christians.
Post a reply to this comment

Sorry

posted 9/15/08 @ 12:40 PM CST

Gsane,

"Other scientists"? Are you a scientist?

A scientist cannot say, "You have to have faith that my hypothesis is correct." He has to actually prove that it's correct. If he can't, then it is hardly proven science, as you said it was earlier. In fact, it's hardly science at all.
Post a reply to this comment

GSane

posted 9/15/08 @ 2:53 PM CST

I am attempting to become one, yes. I understand the scientific method.

If you would like a resource for my reasoning that presents examples from both sides (but it is an admittedly Christian-based website), go to answersingenesis.org. If they do not provide the reasoning behind their proof, or if they don't have proof, let me know and I will find a better source. There is always the Bible though.
Post a reply to this comment

Sigh

posted 9/15/08 @ 4:01 PM CST

Everything on Answers in Genesis has been disproven time and time again. If you are attempting to become a scientist, I suggest you look into what the National Academy of Sciences has to say on the subject of creationism. To suggest that the earth is only 6,000 years old, as AIG does, does not only require a rejection of mainstream evolutionary science, but also a rejection of many other unrelated fields of science, from archaeology to anthropology, and from geology to astronomy and mainstream physics. They pretend that they are only rejecting "evolution", when in fact they reject every science that has anything to say about the past, because anytime science investigates the past the inevitable result is that their religious beliefs are disproven.
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 49 of 49

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Advertisement