OT: OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELT

DreamStalker wrote:My point was and always has been that religion should not be in the business of teaching science just as science should not be in the business of preaching faith. Nothing personal about it.

I agree with that! Teach them both separately and preach them both separately as well. And most importantly, allow each person the presence of mind and soul to find their own path toward truth. Forcing human will, in the name of a creator and belief system, is an overly recurring sad failure in the history of mankind, IMHO.

Wulfman wrote:I think there are things that both sides can't explain.

So well said! One thing is for certain: the search for understanding will never be over. The quest itself seems to be part-and-parcel of the intended human experience---as far as I can tell.
In Search of the God Particle

What torques my jaws is that UNIONS BUILT THE MIDDLE CLASS and now .... the anti-union sentiment is this country astounds me!!!!

What do the American people think the American (and state and local) Medical Association is? The American (and state and local) Bar Association is? etc., etc. But they are okay. Its just the "little guys'" unions that are the root of all evil and need to be destroyed.

And most of the houses we see being re-possessed are expensive houses, not "starter homes" nor what used to be "middle class" housing. And what's been built in the last 10-15 years in our area have been big, ugly, pretentious houses in "classy" subdivisions w/a list of restrictions a mile long.

A little history......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unio ... ted_States


Den

-SWS wrote: Forcing human will, in the name of a creator and belief system, is an overly recurring sad failure in the history of mankind, IMHO.

I agree with that too!

If only that was preached to the choir, the history of mankind might be less bloody too

DreamStalker wrote: I never professed any belief.

DreamStalker wrote: I believe it was the Link...

Oops!

DreamStalker wrote: My point was and always has been that religion should not be in the business of teaching science just as science should not be in the business of preaching faith.

How can you make a point without professing a belief? Don't you believe what you say (and always have said)?

For the record, I can't find where the second half of your "point" was ever stated or implied. While I heartily agree with it, the reality is that science (as preached today) requires as much faith as many religions.

LinkC wrote: While I heartily agree with it, the reality is that science (as preached today) requires as much faith as many religions.

I agree that religion and science both necessarily rely on assumptions. No debate there.

But you have a definitive quantitative comparison embedded in your statement that admittedly piques my curiosity. I assume you're rendering a perfectly legitimate intuitive assessment (a.k.a. "opinion"). But curiosity compels me to ask if there really is some kind of quantitative "assumptions comparison" kicking around out there (a scholarly body of work or database) comparing the sheer volume of scientific assumptions versus religious assumptions.

If there is, I would personally find that fascinating---and would truly love to read it.

As would I. Let me know if you find a source.

LinkC wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: My point was and always has been that religion should not be in the business of teaching science just as science should not be in the business of preaching faith.

How can you make a point without professing a belief?

Well, let's see if I can make this point without professing a belief ... I don't believe in what the Link professes about the reality of science whether databases or links are missing or not.

LinkC wrote:Don't you believe what you say (and always have said)?

That one sounds like a trick question so I'll plead (profess) the fifth on that one.

LinkC wrote:For the record, I can't find where the second half of your "point" was ever stated or implied.

Let's see .... ummm, there was here ...

DreamStalker wrote:Religious beliefs should be kept well out of reach of the scientific method.

and oh yes, here ...

DreamStalker wrote:Our country is suffering a decline in science and engineering education and this is not the way to improve our competitive edge against the Chinese. Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work! ... leave religion to more appropriate things like say ... uhhh, I dunno --- charity?

... right before you ... uhhh, asked to question some cows for declarations of truth or something like that.

LinkC wrote:While I heartily agree with it, the reality is that science (as preached today) requires as much faith as many religions.

Well then, you should be able to throw out that CPAP machine and put faith in your religion that you won't have any more apneas right?

Oh well, enough of this silliness ... and btw, we do agree in questioning all that is professed.

profess:
Function: verb
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from profes, adjective, having professed one's vows, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin professus, from Latin, past participle of profiteri to profess, confess, from pro- before + fateri to acknowledge; in other senses, from Latin professus, past participle — more at confess
Date: 14th century

transitive verb
1. to receive formally into a religious community following a novitiate by acceptance of the required vows
2. a: to declare or admit openly or freely, affirm b: to declare in words or appearances only : pretend , claim
3. to confess one's faith in or allegiance to
4. a: to practice or claim to be versed in (a calling or profession) b: to teach as a professor

intransitive verb
1. to make a profession or avowal
2. obsolete : to profess friendship

from -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profess

What a great post, certainly stirred diverse opinions. Since we use our individual thought processes to interpretate another person's thought processes, we should have a poll to see if any came close to Rooster's original intent. I interpreted the message of possible change in charity deductions, as one of the warning signals that if President Obama continues with the type of changes he is proposing, it will bring massive social change in the USA.

In American History, The topic of social change is repeated from one generation to the next. Using Professor Howard Zinn's theory in his acclaimed book, A Peoples History of the United States-from 1841 to present (Clinton Presidency) He attacks the usual story that the Robber Barons were the heros of the late 1800's. He states the Baron's built their fortunes using masses of largely immigrant labor. Five and one-half million immigrants arrived in the 1880's. Four million came in the 1890's. This created a favorable labor surplus for the Barons that kept wages down. The surplus of workers created strong economic competition between the immigrants and the native born citizens for employment.

Then another cycle began. The immigrants and their children joined the citizens working in the mills, mines & factories. Later they rebelled against the Barons. Began forming unions, and struck for higher wages & safer employment. Thousands of laborers joined Unions. They picketed their employers. The Police were ordered to attack the strikers and stop the strikes. They arrested strikers, but juries would not find them guilty. The strikers won against astonishing odds. They did not win all their demands, but they dared to resist, and did increase their wages.

In the next cycle after World War 11, the middle class reached a level of prosperity previously unknown. They bought refrigerators, cars, homes and sent their children to college. Unions were credited with raising the income level of their members and the general public.

Fast forward to the 1990's. Unions were in disfavor and the Automotive Unions were excoriated for excessive labor demands and ruining our Automotive Industry.

Most of the descendants of the Barons have their fortunes; how will the cycle of big Government affect them? And will changes in government improve or damage the way of life of the average American citizen?
Jan

Liam Wrote: Great Depression was aided and strengthened when Herbert Hoover's response to a similar recession was to enact a spending freeze.


To be acurate, and I certainly am not defending Hoover, but unemployment and a deepinging of the recession did not Occure until Hoover raised marginal tax rates on the wealth for 25% to 63% in 1932. It is Likely we are headed their again. You should remember that Government as a percentage of the overall economy was very small in 1929 and Hoovers first move was to increase spending. It was the increase taxes on the concentration of capital that drove us into depression. What you tax you get less of and what you subsidize you get more of!

Dpursi,

That doesn't match with what I've been hearing from economists, but I am not an expert, merely repeating what I've found in looking at what the experts (or reported experts) are saying, so you may be right.

Liam, who may be right, or may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're lookin' for.

Off Topic, Off topic.... This has nothing to do with the topic, but I was just wondering if anyone here who is on SSI or who was on the list to get that $250 Obama promised has gotten their checks for $250 yet. I know I haven't and I need it! Didn't Obama say that "the checks in the mail during his February press conference? He's given the millionaires billions and all I want is what he promised the people on SSI. I'd rather have a billion, but I guess I'm not rich enough to get that much. What a strange country we live in. I just need my $250 for food. I bet Obama's meals cost more than that for one day.

Why do you think pointing out the broken promises and empty rhetoric of this charlatan is "Off Topic"? I think that was the point.

Just add "SSI recipients" to the growing list in the title...

Love you guys,

Rooster


Give me back that filet of fish,
Give me that fish.
If it were you up here on the wall ...

The checks in the mail remark was in reference to the reduction in tax withholdings it may add up to $250.00 over the year but my bet is it won't bye you a tank of gas as it is split up over each pay check and then at the end of the year when you file your taxes I am sure they will take away enough deductions that you will loose even the small amount. It certainly will not cover the estimated $3,000.00 average increase per household in energy cost due to Cap and Trade. This increased energy cost will drive up the price of every product may in the good old USA. That sucking sound you hear is the jobs moving to China were cheap coal runs their new factories.