A. I don’t think it is unreasonable to at least allow for the option of teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Further, punishing children who want to share their ideas or belief system seems a bit intolerant to me. One of my neighbor’s children was suspended for even suggested God existed and there might be an alternative to evolution. The suspension was for 3 days. Please tell me, do you think that is fair?

B. Birth control is one thing. Abortions performed on innocent babies is another. Teen pregnancies are in issue in America. The issue with those who support abortions (and even certain forms of birth control) is this line of thinking clearly promotes consequence-free sex. I mean how does one justify the killings of millions of innocents with the idea “so I do not feel I can support a child (or it’s not convenient) and therefore I’m going to end it’s life.”

C. Funny I was just discussing this in another forum with others. I honestly believe that the fight of same-sex marriage is two separate issues. The first is the actual institution of marriage from a religious standpoint. The second is the term “marriage” as a legal, binding contract registered by the government for the purpose of certain rights.

For many homosexuals, at least at the heart of the matter, the piece of paper with the marriage license is really not the issue. The issue is how our laws prohibit them from enjoying what their money, and taxes pay for. If a homosexual wants to put their partner on their health insurance I say let them do it. They pay for it. If they want them to get their social security when they die let them do it. If one partner dies, they should have the right to specify that their partner gets their inheritance, their pension, their retirement, etc. I believe if one partner is critically injured, the other should have the right to be by their side, not shunned because they aren't “legally family".

I’m not saying that a homosexual relationship should be called a marriage from a Biblical perspective, but the money they pay to these systems is the same. Their contributions to society are the same if they work and pay taxes. While the lifestyle they live is something I don't agree with, I can’t in good conscience say that they should not receive benefits. Possibly we should just give it a different name with the same rights. That way conservatives and liberals will be happy? Marriage and “give it a name”?



What feigned persecution are you referring to please? You mean the fact that everyone (including religious institutions) has to contribute to a health care system that promotes/finances abortions even if one doesn’t agree with said procedure?

If at all possible it would be nice to have a discussion without trying to insult me personally. I’d like to attempt to discuss this in a civilized manner.

Your thoughts?

First you are forgetting that the schools and the government institutions belong to ALL citizens. Not just liberals. Every citizen has a voice.

Actually, believing the earth is not older than 10,000 means I have faith that my God who I believe is powerful enough to have created a man fully grown can make a universe that seems older than it is?

Believing the earth is less than a few billion years old requires faith. Just because you don’t understand faith or agree with it doesn’t mean you have the right to diminish its value by implying faith in God automatically requires a lack of intelligence. Once again how very tolerant of you.



Please help me understand… So now religious people are not allowed to influence laws? Wait don’t religious people have a vote too in the U.S. last time I checked? Or would you like to take away that as well? Are you saying all religious people are like extreme Muslims in Iran and Afghanistan?

Truth be told I would rather not be called any derogatory names you have mentioned. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing lacking in your intelligence that prevents you from understanding that. Apparently regardless of what I would like you continue to use degrading terms. I guess the choice word is "idiot" now in reference to Christians and religious people in general. Unless you can address me in a civilized manner this will be my last post to you on this thread.

That would be fine if there weren't so many people like you who were incapable of expressing a voice arising from reason. You were clearly brought up in an environment where facts did not matter. That is not how public schools or government should operate. The bottom line is that I don't want my beliefs taught or your beliefs. I want science classes to teach scientific reasoning skills and what the evidence is. The only reason that is controversial is because some people think it conflicts with their beliefs.

It is clear to me that you were probably home-schooled and were not exposed to rigorous thinking. Or perhaps it was some podunk private religious school, maybe a really bad public school. Because your beliefs about science are so unbelievably deficient that I truly hope you never have any influence on any actual schools because the poor children will suffer dearly throughout their lives from it.

Equating religious (or political) beliefs with "beliefs" in science is ignorant. Scientific beliefs are not mere opinions. They are conclusions developed from careful thought and scrutiny of evidence. In most important areas there is consensus and I expect schools and government to operate based on the current consensus. That consensus may change over time as new ideas or evidence emerge, and there will always be some scientists that question details of any consensus. That is healthy. But their questions must be based on evidence as well or they can expect to be ignored and marginalized.

When you make statements that "believing" in evolution or that the earth is about 4 billion years old is somehow the same as believing in god or creationism, you are revealing the profoundness of your ignorance and WHY you and people like you should not have influence on school curriculum or public policy regarding science any more than I should be defining what should be taught in your sunday school.


No, it requires ignorance. Ignorance of the evidence and lack of the capability to reach reasonable conclusions based on analysis of the evidence. Besides, that would be a pretty pathetic god you believed in if he was so lacking in power that he had to create all sorts of confounding evidence to make it appear the earth had a different history and then blabbed the reality of how he made the earth to people in ancient times.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is always the preferred one.


You have every right to influence laws. But why do insist on trying to tell the rest of us what to do like the nutjobs in Iran? If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry another guy. Want to have whacked out opinions on science, don't try to have them taught in public schools. Don't like abortion, don't have one.

I can think of many reasons why members of your church should not be allowed to marry. I can also think of some pretty outlandish ideas about science, some of which are even consistent with the evidence. But you don't find me trying to have laws enacted to prohibit members of your church from marrying or requiring my kooky ideas be taught in public schools.

Enough with the drama and hyperbole, Eagle. You know that DH isn't suggesting that anyone's rights be abridged, whatever their religious persuasion. However, influencing laws is not the same in incorporating religious beliefs into laws. This nation was founded in part on religious freedom and escape from religious tyranny. And one reason why we're a republic, not a true democracy: so that the majority cannot impose their will on the minority. Somehow you've turned statements that people don't want laws based on religious views imposed upon them into "don't religious people have a vote too in the U.S. last time I checked?" That's demagoguery and it's distortion. That works for the rubes, but most of us here recognize it for what it is.

Ok, maybe just a little bit of common ground here:



It is totally unreasonable to teach intelligent design in school science classes because it is not science. We should not teach alchemy or astrology either. If you want to put it in a philosophy or comparative religion class then maybe there is room for that.

I do not think a kid should be suspended for expressing their belief or for suggesting an alternative to evolution (though insisting on it and not learning the theory of evolution would be grounds for failing a science class just as refusing to read the bible and the koran would be grounds for failing a comparative religion class). But I strongly suspect there is more to the story here. Suggesting god exists should not result in suspension but preaching probably should not be allowed.


This is a huge can of worms and truly goes way beyond religion. In fact, I think we might be able to make more progress if we approach it as a social issue rather than demonizing everyone involved. You might be surprised to know that Barry Goldwater, the father of American conservatism, was a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood. His daughter is still on the board here in Arizona after succeeding Barry's wife.

I certainly do not favor abortion but I do believe it should be an option for a woman if that is what she chooses and it should be safe and legal. Remember, abortion bans do not prevent abortion. They just make it riskier and result in the deaths of some women. You can look back in history in this country for evidence of that or you can look at other countries in the present day. Women die as a result of not having access to safe abortions.

Perhaps better distribution and access to birth control would help. Birth control is cheap. As I've said in the past, I do not believe churches that oppose BC should be forced to pay for it although I do think that religious universities should when religion is not a requirement for employment. Actually, I don't think birth control (or viagra for that matter) should be covered by insurance in the first place.

C. I honestly believe that the fight of same-sex marriage is two separate issues. The first is the actual institution of marriage from a religious standpoint. The second is the term “marriage” as a legal, binding contract registered by the government for the purpose of certain rights.

I wouldn't want to tell your church that they have to recognize same sex marriage or perform those ceremonies.

But you seem to want to deny gays the recognition of their commitment and the civil legal rights that go along with marriage. Perhaps we should ban marriage entirely and only allow recognition of civil unions. And with all the religious baggage gone, we don;t need to restrict it to just two people. We could have three-way marriages (it happened in Brazil recently) of people could marry their pets. What's wrong with that?

I can agree with most of the rest of what you wrote about that issue. But I don't see why we need separate terms. That's just asking for discrimination. We need a Federal law, no, a constitutional amendment, banning marriage at the state level and establishing a system of civil registration to replace it. We can have a new cabinet level position, the Secretary of Civil Unions, to oversee it all. Churches would be banned from performing civil union ceremonies but would have no interference as far as marrying people. Children could marry, adults could marry children, polygamy would be legal, etc. After all, we don't want to infringe on religious freedom.

Actually, that last paragraph was only partly facetious. Why not just simplify everything and let anyone who wants to marry do so? Let churches do as they wish as well. Why do you want to tell people what term they can use to refer to their commitment?

Well at least the insults were more intelligently expressed this time DH. It may surprise you to know that many people find me reasonable. But hey this is a public internet forum. This isn’t a face-to-face time at a coffee shop with friends. This doesn’t mean we can’t be civil.

And no once again what you assume is incorrect. I went to a college prep school. One of those international schools where academia is akin to God. Most of the people I went to school with ended up in Yale, Harvard, Boston, etc. My high school education ($4-5k a month alone in high school) probably cost more than the combined cost of your entire education combined. But maybe I assume too much. You know what they say about assuming… But that’s beside the point and I digress. Attacking me personally is simply an attempt to discredit me. It serves no useful purpose or positive contribution to the discussion. I will note it is not appreciated though. After all tdelmater has decided not to continue the discussion.

Science attempts to explain the world around us. We are one tiny planet in one solar system in one galaxy amongst billions in the known universe. Imagine what we don’t know. Imagine what we’ll know in 100 years? Or 500? I mean we as a human race haven’t even been to another planet yet… Let alone another star system. Lol.

I have carefully considered the reasons for evolution. I rejected it a long time ago. Possibly like you rejected God a long time ago. Everyone believes in something DH. I’ve read all of what you, VinTek, and others have presented on the subject in the discussions we’ve had. I simply don’t think or believe the universe could possibly have come into existence by chance. Or that my species evolved from an ape.

On a lighter note: “Three monkeys hitting keys at random on typewriters for an infinite amount of time will almost surely produce Hamlet." - Infinite monkey theorem.



Even if you are a die hard evolutionist that is funny you have to admit.

Sorry I will not budge no matter what anyone calls me or implies about my intelligence. Perhaps we could move onto other subjects? We can argue all day and it won’t make a difference. I think finding common ground would be a better use of our time.

So for clarification purposes conservative, religious people are still welcomed by the left in the U.S.?

Glad we can finally agree on a few things.



Yes, unfortunately the public school system agrees with you on ID in school. This is the brave new world we live in.

This little 5 year old guy who I believe is in the gifted program in the school near where I live told his teacher in front of other classmates that he believed God created the whole universe. He also said that Jesus died for him and everybody else in the classroom, school, and the whole world. Two sentences = 3 day suspension.

Way to keep God completely out of schools. His teacher is an atheist. Go figure.



This is true. How many babies die daily because of both safe and un-safe abortions? Why aren’t we asking this question?



Better distribution and access to birth control? What about just plain 100% abstinence? Works every time. Why is there such a push for teaching consequence-free sex in the first place? Because a teen who doesn’t have the right to drive, drink, or vote has the right to end another individuals life without the consultation of her parents… Right. That makes sense.

That is refreshing to hear your thoughts on churches and BC. And yes, I agree Viagra should not be covered by insurance. Lol.



What rights am I denying? You said you agreed with most of the rest… It would look and feel the same exact way as marriage but it would just have a different name. This would satisfy both camps of the argument. It’s not discrimination it’s a compromise. You know that process that the government is supposed to be partaking in – negotiation?

Possibly we should just give it a different name with the same legal rights. That way conservatives and liberals will be happy? Marriage and “{give it a name}”?

Seriously? Marrying pets? Lol.

As to the idea that marriage should be a federal government thing… Um, sorry no thanks. Government has enough fingers in individual’s lives as it is. Knowing how things are run by the federal government it would just end up being handled like the USPS – over-promising and under-producing. Lol.

Sure, why wouldn't they be? But it would sure be nice if they turned the rhetoric off once in awhile and dealt with some things more on a factual basis.

And it may surprise you to find that I'm a registered Republican and quite fiscally conservative. I just find that many conservatives today are more into sloganeering and less into fact than they once were. And I'm deeply disappointed that the candidates in my party have to hew to right right to get the nomination then tack back to the center to have a chance in the general election. Let's face it, even the far Right saw their own favorites liked to play it fast and loose with the facts and had to run to Mitt to have any chance of eliminating Obama.

That said, I'm going to vote Obama this year because (as you'd seen in your own "One Term Proposition" thread) that the Republican case this election cycle is built on FUD. You asked the question, and we gave you many many reasons why that movie was bogus. Yet when asked why you believed in it to the degree that you were willing to base your vote on it, you decided not to defend your position. That's your right, of course. But it hardly makes for an interesting discussion.

Sorry I lost interest in the One Term Proposition thread. FUD is being portrayed by both sides. Take the personal attack adds against Romney for example. bpui's quote at Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:47 am - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=55832

And now we're back to politics and the election. I thought we were talking about Christian people and values. Being a registered Republican doesn't make you a conservative would you agree? There are varying levels of conservatives.

I just hope 20 or 30 years from now you don't look back with serious regret. Romney is a long shot but at least a big question mark. With Obama we know we're going to get: reduction in military, increase in government size, more socialistic programs, more pro-abortion federal funding (to PP), more pushing of the homosexual agenda, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the political tension just gets worst especially in Muslim countries. We already lost an ambassador and American citizens to serious terrorist attacks...

Curious as to why you're going to vote for Obama though? Surely not just because there is FUD in the GOP? Lol.

Care to keep a scorecard on FUD?


Actually, I was responding to your statements about Christians influencing law and the voting rights of Christians.


Because Mitt's numbers don't add up. I know, I know. It's a Democratic talking point. But seriously, I've seen Mitt's plan and it really doesn't make sense. Add that to his massive shift from the right to the center, and to be honest, I don't know what he really stands for. Anyway, I can go through Mitt's numbers with you point by point if you want, but it really should be in another thread.

I think eagle would be surprised to know my background and opinions as well. I'm a registered independent but am generally conservative when it comes to economic issues. I think the Republicans and especially Ryan are WAY off base on their economic policies right now. The basic problem is that they are so afraid of "flip flopping" that they stand by principles that only work under some economic conditions. It's a little like driving your car the same way regardless of whether you are on an interstate, offroad, or in a residential neighborhood. You simply can't apply the same principles all the time. I absolutely agree that we've got to balance the budget over the longer term but spending cuts and tax cuts would be disastrous right now.

I also used to work in defense in the capacity of pursuing some large programs. These were typically around $100 million but a couple came close to half a billion. When I did that I went to some very senior level briefings. This was in the Bush administration. Even then the military was having huge programs shoved down their throats by special interests (big aerospace and defense companies) and their supporters in Congress while the operators that actually needed stuff to get a job done were openly (at least in these confined spaces) saying they didn't need all the expensive crap. In a few cases they said they could do their job protecting the country better with a million dollars more a year for staffing a facility and maintaining perfectly good equipment instead of the $100 million system that was shoved into an appropriations bill. It was that experience that taught me that, while we need a strong military, the defense department could withstand HUGE cuts without any sacrifice in security.

My boss at the time was a former White House official. He was a lifelong republican and a former senior national security official. His connections were unbelievable. He was INVITED to Reagan's funeral. He also expressed to me on numerous occasions that the republican party had become an embarrassment.

Lately I have become intrigued by Barry Goldwater. He was actually my senator but before I had even the slightest interest in politics. Lately though I have been reading a lot about him. He was a staunch conservative and used to be one of the "heros" of the republican party. He was essentially responsible for Reagan getting into politics.

Barry also despised the religious right. He hated what they were doing to politics and was an outspoken critic. He died in 1998 but spent much of the 80s and 90s doing everything he could to fight the influence of the evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. He actively supported democrats when the opponent was from teh religious right. He was also a strong advocate of legal abortion because that was the only position consistent with the conservative principle of individual rights and freedom.

I don't agree with all of Barry Goldwater's positions and I shudder to call myself a conservative in the general sense, but I'd be much more likely to actually be a conservative republican if the party actually stood for what it claims to stand for!

It is transparent to me that Mitt is being dragged around by the nose by special interests. His position on defense, for example, seems to be all about buying more ships...beyond the bayonets and horses comment there is a serious point. The Navy has an operating plan that proceeds from mission to threats to strategy. That plan is available online (my job used to require I be VERY familiar with those plans and the defense budget so I got good at digging up this stuff. It is all publicly available.) Guess what, the role of the Navy is shifting away from ships. Why? Because the threats are not fleets anymore. Battlegrounds are shifting to space and the cyberworld and have been for years. This shift has continued under Obama. Does he get the credit? No. It's driven by the military. But Romney's focus on ships is targeted at ignorant people and likely at the shipbuilding industry. It is interesting the McCain has been pushing legislation to gut the Jones Act and subsidize US shipbuilding. I have not bothered to look but I'm sure the big shipbuilders have been big donors.

Another special interest is the religious right. That's so obvious that it hardly needs further comment.

So, while I could be a conservative republican voter, I simply cannot support the despicable direction the party has taken over the last 20 years or so. There is nothing about cuddling up to the religious right or wanting to spend wildly on defense for programs that aren't aligned with strategy that matches the conservative principles of individual freedom and fiscal restraint!

I will be voting for Obama. I'll also be voting for the democratic candidates for the House and Senate. In the past I have supported McCain (for senate not president) but the guy the republicans are running this time is running a campaign based on lies and catering to the religious right. For the House I get to choose between an uninteresting guy that used to be a staffer for Gabby Giffords and a woman supported by the Tea Party. I'll take the staffer thank you.

I have most definitely not always voted for democrats. I vote on issues and my ballot has usually been about half and half. But if the republican party continues on the path it is on I think my own ballot will be getting more and more blue as my disgust builds.

Telling other people what they are not allowed to do (have an abortion) also does not make one a conservative. Incorporating religion in government and public life is inconsistent with conservative principles.

This is why I consider myself a conservative, but NOT a Republican... Mostly a libertarian (small "l").
I agree with a lot more of what the Republican Party claims to stand for than what their actions show they stand for.

The more I read about Goldwater the more I realize that there has pretty much always been that struggle in the republican party. In the 1950s Goldwater was resurrecting conservatism within the party. In other words, it had been there in the past but disappeared.

On an unrelated(?) note, I've noticed that in this election far fewer campaign signs actually identify the candidate's party. I have had to go look at their websites a few times and even then it is not easy to find in some cases. I wonder if many candidates (of both parties) are finding party affiliation to be more of a hindrance than helpful?