Best Universities are Blue

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Tom57, Nov 26, 2004.

  1. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    YES! Absolutely!!

    The thing that is blown out of proportion in church and state issues is that Conservatives are trying shove religious beliefs down our throats. That’s not the case. Granted, there are people who do, but generally the right believes we should simply be free to worship as we wish

    There are groups that want all references to God removed from public view. These groups don’t represent a majority of Americans. In fact I would guess they represent a very small portion of Americans. They are, however, loud. They receive a disproportionate share of publicity, and in some cases succeed in applying their positions to public policy.

    Some of these groups want to do things like remove the Declaration of Independence from schools because it mentions God. When anyone from the right comes out opposing these groups he is branded a religious zealot trying to impose his beliefs on the rest of the country.

    In actuality, however, most Americans from both sides oppose these extremist ideas. Most people don’t want the Declaration of Independence removed from schools, and most people don’t care if the Ten Commandments are displayed outside of a Courthouse. Does anyone refuse to accept or spend money because it says “In God We Trust”?

    The ideas of these groups are generally extremist in nature. Opposing these groups does not make one a “serpent-handling bible thumper”. I’m as conservative as anybody, but could no more quote a bible verse than speak Chinese. I also don’t believe organized religion belongs in public schools. But if a child wants to give thanks to God before eating lunch he or she should not be ridiculed or disciplined for doing so.
  2. kansasbaptist

    kansasbaptist New Member

    WOW, I wish you were at least somewhat concerned about the rights of the unborn child? Or how about the rights of the father? Why does he not have a say until the day the child is born, then viola, the courts are involved.

    You see, for me (and religious issues aside), I think when the woman becomes pregnant, it is just not that simple any longer. It is not just a matter of the woman can do what ever she wants to her own body, because it is not just "her body" any longer.

    I am not expecting you to agree with me, but at least attempt to understand why the issue is so important to anti-abortion folks. There is more at stake than you I think you understand.
  3. kansasbaptist

    kansasbaptist New Member

    My compliments agingBetter!
    I wish all debate on this forum could be this civil and arguements this well thought out.

    I think some confusion stems from the assumption that the Bible is the only authority on morality. I don't believe most Christians think that way. For me the Bible is an absolute, the ulitimate authority on morality, but that does not mean that morality cannot exist outside the Bible and Christianity.

    There are many places were humanism, atheism, and Christianity parallel (murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, society should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, children should be protected, etc.)

    Our government was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy, not Christianity (as a religion) and not the Bible. Jefferson believed that the teachings of Jesus (morality, equality, compassion, and freedom from oppresion) were a grand philosophy for society (minus the miracles and religiuos dogma); therefore created a framework based on those teachings. This is why so many Christians turn to the Bible as their guide.

    For us, abortion is as simple as murder. Many do not agree, but it is a philosophical, not religious argument.

    I certainly do not want to legislate religious practice, but I do think it is important for any society to determine what the boundries of human behavior shoud be (thus laws surrounding those parallels).

    This is why I think abortion and homosexual marriage are important issues -- because I believe they go beyond the boundries of acceptable moral behavior. I could be wrong, but I certainly have the right to express those beliefs and attempt to effect legislation that I believe is good for society, just as you do.
  4. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    I wish you were at least concerned with the rights of a woman who has been raped. Or a woman who would die if she were forced to carry a baby to term.

    But that's silly. I assume that you are not completely evil and that you are actually concerned about these things. (Even though you make the opposite assumption about me.)

    And of course, I am concerned with the rights of the unborn child, and the rights of the father. I believe that there should be significant restrictions on the ability to have an abortion. For example, I completely favor the "partial birth" abortion ban (as long as it provides an exception for the life/health of the mother.)

    There is no point in arguing about when life begins. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and there is no chance that either of us will convince the other (or anyone else reading this, for that matter.)

    By the way, I assume that since you advocate that women who do not want a child should give birth to those children that you have adopted several unwanted babies. That's awesome. I appreciate someone who really fulfills the full ramifications of their beliefs.

    It would be a shame if you were such a hypocrite that you insist that babies be brought into this world, but you refuse to raise them.
  5. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Here's one that might ruffle some feathers.

    If you are an athiest, like some on this post, you believe that all attempts at some kind of transcendent morality are misguided and wrongheaded.

    Morality is just a human construction, according to that view.

    However, if you are a Christian, when it comes to political issues, you can be more tolerant, more "liberal" than an athiest. While Christians don't believe the same things as Muslims, they agree that there is such a thing as "morality." They also agree with Jews that it's impossible to totally separate one's morality from public life.

    Christians are, thus, more tolerant than athiests. We accept that there is some truth in other religions outisde of Christianity, while athiests claim that there is no truth in anything that anyone else believes, only superstition. Christians also acknowledge that athiesm is a religion, and also affirm that this life is important. But Christians affirm all three: time, space AND spirit.

    The reflex to banish all values from the public sphere is, then, an athiest notion. It's harmful, dogmatic, exclusivist, and anti-American. If you say all morality should be stuffed inside, you are saying that all religious people have to renounce their right to be religious in order to live in America. You are saying that all Americans must convert to the practice of athiesm and not bring any beliefs into the public sphere. That's a totalistic statement of faith: the public sphere is "all there is" and everything else is just a hotbed for unnecessary hostility.

    You have to keep hoping that from your ranting, that religion will just go away. It won't though. You know it from history and real life.

    So when tolerance is defined this way it is an insincere and superficial way of making peace. A peace, furthermore, that is much needed in our world of ongoing crisis and conflict.

    Let's not pretend that there's nothing to religion, and to just "kiss and make up." Let's actually discuss religious differences and be serious about respecting and working towards reconciliation. If there are any solutions, they won't come from deferring the inevitable religious conflicts that our society faces and "tolerantly" pretending they dont' exist.

    Or maybe if you force enough people to play pretend, then you can keep the game going for a long time.
  6. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    There are many more prospective parents than there are unwanted babies in this country. Some couples may wait years to find a baby to adopt.

    The ultimate act of selflessness and love is to take nine months out of your busy life to give your baby the chance to be raised by loving parents.
  7. Khan

    Khan New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Universities are Blue

    That was a good theory/explanation. Interesting. My experiences and employment don't seem to allow me to trust like that but I guess deep down I wish I did.
  8. agingBetter

    agingBetter New Member

    Okay. I'm slow. I've got to start with one point and work my way up.

    On morality:

    "Let's look at what happens when people claim to get absolute morality from a god. I say that such religious absolutists don't have morality; what they have is a code of obedience, which is not the same. God sets what is supposedly moral, and they obey. If God were to say that murder and theft were moral, people would have to kill and steal to act morally. Actually, this is exactly what is happening with the suicide bombers in the Middle East. This is also what was behind the Crusades, the Inquisitions and 9/11. The fact that we find this so abhorrent shows that morality does not come from a god. God fails the morality test."
  9. kansasbaptist

    kansasbaptist New Member

    You know grgrwll, you might want to think before making such cruel remarks
    I have six children, one of them adopted and my wife and I are trying to adopt from China now. My brother has 9 children, 4 of them adopted.

    You pop off your big mouth without having any idea what the hell you talking about. If gave one damn about these babies you take all that emotion and see if you change the adoption laws.

    Not that it matters but it cost me over $30K for one adoption and I am in over $15K on this one, who knows what it cost in the end. You tell me how to do it cheaper and I take all the kids you can line up.

    I don't want to talk to you ever again. Don't expect any responses from me to any of your riduculous posts.

    I won't go into a long post or lot of detail, but my life was touched very deeply by an abortion for something along these lines. So you take your hateful attitude and snide remarks and blow it our your ass!!!!
  10. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    Wow! Calling people names but refusing to identify who you are talking about. Is that what they teach you in Sunday School?

    Regardless of what you might believe, the fact that a person is not a Christian does not make them an athiest.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2004
  11. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    Michael, you are one of the most self-righteous people I've ever encountered. You took great joy in calling me a stoner, when you know nothing about me. Yet when I say that I assume that you are dong the right thing, you take great offense.

    I guess that's what Jesus would do.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2004
  12. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm here because of such an act of selflessness.

    Of course, to most of you, that makes me a "bastard."

    I've heard it all before. Belittle me because my mother had the gall to have a baby out of wedlock. Heard it all my life from "good Christians."

    And then you wonder why so many women have abortions.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2004
  13. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    This is not at all what I said when I started this thread. The original discussion was about why the highly rated universities seem to be situated in traditionally liberal areas. I don't have the foggiest how this morphed into blue states have a higher intelligence than red states. It seems to have stemmed from a nonsensical look at IQ's in each state, and people making a distinction between an average IQ of 101 versus 100, and then reaching ridiculous conclusions based on this.

    C'mon folks, let's get back to a meaningful discussion - something like what is it about the liberal viewpoint which might translate into higher academic reputations. Let's forget the argument about whether Kansas is smarter than New Hampshire. :confused:
  14. Splas

    Splas New Member

    Well said Mr. Dayson, that may be the best explanation I could have come up with in a year of thinking, and you did it on the fly. Impressive! :D

    Believe it or not alot of the Bible thumpers in NC (where I live) are actually registered as democrats. In fact, the state has more democrats than republicans (alot more if I'm not mistaken) yet we are still a red state.

    Why? Because Kerry was/is a joke. If voting for that phony, purple heart grabbing, flip flopper is intelligent, then intelligence is misdefined in the dictionary.

    So, you would rather live a tempoary (50-100 years) life in a world full of injustice, ignorance, hate, and corruption, then live eternally with a being so wonderful and brilliant that he made this world and all of us in it, breaths life into your lungs and movement into your heart every moment of your life.

    You could live eternally with the greatest philosopher ever, the greatest psychologist ever, the greatest teacher ever, the greatest scholar ever, the greatest mathematician ever, the greatest scientist ever.. I could go on forever.

    I will be confused til the day I die as to why most of academia refuses to admit God exists, yet they have no proof that he does not (unless you think the Big Bang theory is proof :rolleyes: ) You would think they of all people would know that this statement is always true.

    "Every Creation must have a Creator"

    That is basic, kindergarden knowledge.

    God exists unless you can scientifically prove otherwise (the facts are on this side), and fat chance anyone every will.

    Suite yourself in pretending God doesn't exist, but to me that just seems lacking in logic.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2004
  15. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Universities are Blue

    I agree with some of your points, but frankly I'm a little surprised at some of your generalizations - especially from you, who can usually be counted on for extremely reasoned responses.

    First, I prefer liberal and conservative to Democrat and Republican. I think the party designations are really only a crude proxy for what is, at heart, more of a philosophical center. I think your pejorative view of Democrats as sort of embittered "muckrakers" is off base. You know as well as I that there are plenty of Dems (liberals) who are not bitter, and who have achieved just as much comfort and satisfaction in this world as the Republicans you also generalize about.

    I would prefer to view mainstream liberals not as "bitter" but rather as people who live with a conscious - people who realize that much of what life offers is often based on luck, rather than skill, and that others perhaps deserve some of that luck to be a little more equally distributed. Even those liberals who have it good (and you and I know that there are a ton in the Bay Area) might realize that a society that doesn't look out for the world as a whole is one that is on very shaky ground. The conservatives' contentment that you allude to is perhaps more fleeting than they realize.

    Nevertheless, in a way I agree with your crude distinction. Republicans are largely happy with their lives, and thus want no change. They want the status quo, and they see liberal rumblings as a threat to their comfort.

    Yes, many who are not happy with how life is rolling out are Democrats (or liberals). Is it any surprise that these people would want to work for a change? Is it any surprise that they would like to live a life more like that of the white Anglo male that you describe (by process of elimination)?

    I do resent your tone that nearly implies that liberals are somehow almost pathologically addicted to complaining and dissatisfaction, and that we are all hypocrites who live in million dollar homes while we complain. I think this is way off base, and it certainly doesn't fit my experience. Surely, you could describe liberals a little less cynically? Nevertheless, if you want to hold to this sentiment, then you might want to consider the counterpart - that of the pathological conservative satisfaction. Perhaps people who are inclined to like the way life treats them are more pleasant to be around, but that behavior can be just as annoying, and perhaps far more dangerous in a world that does indeed need to change in order to progress.
  16. agingBetter

    agingBetter New Member


    The great mathematician, Erdos, put his favorite proofs in a big book. If I'm not mistaken, he privately referred to it as his "bible" of sorts. That satisfied him, as the Bible seems to satisfy you and others.

    God, or spirituality, is where you find it. I don't find it in organized religion created by man. If God chose to speak to those who wrote the "book" and not to me personally, then that is not my God, and no one can tell me so.

    There is no proof one way or the other, true, but I cannot subscribe to something man-made, especially not something that hasn't been objectively tested. I am more likely to believe in Erdos' "bible" than the Bible.

    Man is flawed. Man is egotistical. Man is fallible.

    You choose your walk, I'll choose mine.
  17. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    I have to comment on the logic in the above post about God and science.

    One of the basic principles of the scientific method can be boiled down to a simple, seemingly contradictory point.

    If you can NEVER prove that something DOESN'T exist, then it's not scientific.

    For example, take the laws of gravity. No one has been able to prove that they don't exist. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that anyone will prove gravity does not exist... extremely unlikely. However, if at some point in the future, heavy objects randomly started floating upward, scientists would be bound by the scientific method to revise the old laws of gravity and start working on new ones. Or evolution... if a certain aspect of evolutionary theory is widely accepted, but a new discovery -- in say, genetics -- determines that it is false, and the new discovery itself is not disproved even though people take a fair try at disproving it, then the old aspect has be chucked out. The scientific method is merciless; nothing is totally taken for granted, and knowledge is provisional. Evolution is "just" a theory.

    As an opposite example, take unicorns. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist. You can say they don't exist, but someone who believes in unicorns will say "but I saw one just the other day!" and you can say "well I was there and set up a viddeocamera and brought a bloodhound" and they will say "unicorns don't show up on camera and have no smell" etc. etc.

    You can't prove God doesn't exist, you can't prove UFOs and unicorns don't exist and you can't prove art is good or TV is bad. Those things are just not scientific. I hate it when people say science is wrong because of their religion when they have no idea what science is all about.
  18. agingBetter

    agingBetter New Member

    Agreed. I think it is futile to point out, however, unless the reader is willing to concede that scientific rigor is appropriate in discussing whether or not God exists. Most people fall back on the "have faith, heathen!" argument.
  19. Splas

    Splas New Member

    Is that a serious reply or are you just making fun of me. :)

    I never said science was wrong. How can science be wrong? I meant scientists (academics) that believe in evalution aren't acting very scientific.

    Science is logical and factual, and logic and the facts of this world dictates that creations are created by a creator (watch------>watchmaker, guitar------->guitar maker, car-------> car maker, world--------> God/ or world creator), two particals slamming together does not make galaxies. That is VERY unscientific. Thats all I was trying to say in my stupid way.

    My reply was more philosophical than it was scientific. I'm a philosopher at heart not a scientist.

    My point was if science cannot prove God does not exist (as you stated) then why do so many scienctific people act as though people who believe God does exist are somehow less intelligent or not scientificly minded. It is just not so.

    Creations are created, experiment yourself. Crash things together and see if it creates worlds and galaxies. I bet it won't.

    So scientists have no business teaching evolution, that should be for the philosophers :cool:.

    Creations are created, they just do not appear out of nothing, that is scientific, and can be proven. I disagree with your statement.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2004
  20. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    Science is logical, but it is NOT factual. Science is about theory, not fact. You're not making any kind of scientific argument at all, you're arguing from analogy. You cannot tell scientists they are being unscientific if you don't understand what being "scientific" really is.

    As long as you say you are arguing from a philosophical viewpoint... NOT a scientific one. I'm not a scientist but I have respect for both science and philosophy.

    It is no doubt very irritating when someone tells you that they know your special business better than you do. As a rule, molecular biologists don't go around saying that their knowledge of the Hebrew Bible is better than someone who went to a seminary. Yet, some religious figures are very fond of going around saying that they know better than that molecular biologist. Of course other religious people are more respectful, and some are even scientists themselves.

Share This Page