The missing link?

**Consultant** · 05-21-09, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

The church says don't wear condoms b/c it won't protect against aids.

Be more specific, please, so the innocent bystanders here reading your stuff dont think that every church and every branch of Christianity says not to use condoms. Seriously, bro...get your facts straight.

The science I was referring to is the science of evolution. I can't think of anybody but the scientists who use that daily.

Physics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, medicine, dentistry - these are sciences that impact me daily.

The origin the species of man does not impact my daily life - THAT science is the one which I am speaking. Keep your evolutionism to yourself and stop cramming it down my kids throats in public schools.

Doesnt that sound silly? I bet the thought of Intelligent Design as an option in curriculum drives you crazy. Doesn't it? An opposing viewpoint is intolerable - so label it and those who proclaim it as "crazy" and accuse broad, all encompasing groups of them of lieing and cramming.

Puh-lease.

With all due respect...of course.

I await your humble retraction of the whole condom absurdity.

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-21-09, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

The church says don't wear condoms b/c it won't protect against aids.

Be more specific, please, so the innocent bystanders here reading your stuff dont think that every church and every branch of Christianity says not to use condoms. Seriously, bro...get your facts straight.

The science I was referring to is the science of evolution. I can't think of anybody but the scientists who use that daily.

Physics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, medicine, dentistry - these are sciences that impact me daily.

The origin the species of man does not impact my daily life - THAT science is the one which I am speaking. Keep your evolutionism to yourself and stop cramming it down my kids throats in public schools.

Doesnt that sound silly? I bet the thought of Intelligent Design as an option in curriculum drives you crazy. Doesn't it? An opposing viewpoint is intolerable - so label it and those who proclaim it as "crazy" and accuse broad, all encompasing groups of them of lieing and cramming.

Puh-lease.

With all due respect...of course.

I await your humble retraction of the whole condom absurdity.

Intelligent design, hmmm. Science based upon faith. If that isn't a contradiction then I don't know what is.

**Consultant** · 05-21-09, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by 33knight33

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

Why is it any more acceptable for you to say "Keep your religion to yourself" than it is for me to say "Keep your theories and your 'science' to yourself."

Wouldn't that sound messed up?

They are two (sometimes) opposing viewpoints - do you really want to squelch debate and lessen the exchange of ideas?

Not at all, because that science you refer to is something you use daily in your life. Do you wear a seatbelt? Or does your faith protect you from high speed collisions? Everyone relies upon science to live their daily lives. Not everyone relies upon religion. That's not to say you shouldn't, just don't act as if religion needs to be pushed upon others. The condom/aids argument is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The church says don't wear condoms b/c it won't protect against aids. That's an example of why you need to keep it to yourself.

quoted for the truth that I would need a lot more four letter words to convey

A good example, Triggs...of why you need to sharpen your research pencil when dealing with various groups views on things like sexuality.

"The church"

Poor, hapless Knight here, thinks you are right!

Go on - visit wikipedia and tell me which churches, as a matter of basic practice, discourage condom use.

I'll help you - with the only one I can think of.

Roman Catholics - and not even ALL of the Roman Catholics...just the most dogmatic and conservative.

Were you Catholic as a kid? Were you told this horrible lie about rubbers by some member of clergy?

It's all adding up now.

Go on - retract your statement, innocent readers who might think you are actually CORRECT are waiting.

**w4jchosen** · 05-21-09, 03:58 PM

Human secularism is WAY more in your face and much more widely tolerated than almost any religion you will find on this planet, with a few limited exceptions and the broad brush that gets applied to the religious of the world is dipped into the thimble of the colorful zealots and applied evenly.

**Consultant** · 05-21-09, 03:59 PM

Here you go, Captain Academia - I will look it up for you.

http://media.www.westerncourier.com/...s-542117.shtml

CATHOLICS.

Heck, Catholics once sold indulgences and still believe that you can lose your salvation if you misbehave and dont confess your sins....they invented the "boogey man" image of God...

And to prove further that this is not a dominant viewpoint among even Catholics...I present you http://condoms4life.org - who's tagline says "Good Catholics Use Condoms".

Did you ever do any research into the reformation? Read anything about Martin Luther?

Expand your mind. Read a (different) book.

Your views of religion and "the church" are sensationalistic, ill conceived, biased and factually wrong.

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-21-09, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Human secularism is WAY more in your face and much more widely tolerated than almost any religion you will find on this planet, with a few limited exceptions and the broad brush that gets applied to the religious of the world is dipped into the thimble of the colorful zealots and applied evenly.

Wow, that was poetic.

My point is that nobody pushes secularism on the religious. The contrary can't be said.

Btw, how's the weather in Orlando, Consultant?

**Consultant** · 05-21-09, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Intelligent design, hmmm. Science based upon faith. If that isn't a contradiction then I don't know what is.

Again, speaking from a place of short-sighted ignorance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0310/p12s02-lire.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

It's 5:05, and thus - time for me to head home...but these are just 2 examples of where the two do not contradict. For these people, being of sound mind and scientific intellect - does not preclude them from active faiths.

You really need to look outside your own experiential back yard. You and me, and every other scientist and layperson - we don't know shit.

**w4jchosen** · 05-21-09, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Human secularism is WAY more in your face and much more widely tolerated than almost any religion you will find on this planet, with a few limited exceptions and the broad brush that gets applied to the religious of the world is dipped into the thimble of the colorful zealots and applied evenly.

My point is that nobody pushes secularism on the religious. The contrary can't be said.

Really? You are kidding right? You are surrounded by it every single day in almost every facet of your life. It doesn't have to be pushed anymore.

Or it might be that the religious are more accepting and not as intolerant.

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-21-09, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Human secularism is WAY more in your face and much more widely tolerated than almost any religion you will find on this planet, with a few limited exceptions and the broad brush that gets applied to the religious of the world is dipped into the thimble of the colorful zealots and applied evenly.

My point is that nobody pushes secularism on the religious. The contrary can't be said.

Really? You are kidding right? You are surrounded by it every single day in almost every facet of your life. It doesn't have to be pushed anymore.

Or it might be that the religious are more accepting and not as intolerant.

I think you missed my point Chosen. Secularism allows for religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the right to not follow a certain faith. Religion insists there is only one way. Another way of putting it, when was the last time someone killed in the name of secularism?

**w4jchosen** · 05-21-09, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Human secularism is WAY more in your face and much more widely tolerated than almost any religion you will find on this planet, with a few limited exceptions and the broad brush that gets applied to the religious of the world is dipped into the thimble of the colorful zealots and applied evenly.

My point is that nobody pushes secularism on the religious. The contrary can't be said.

Really? You are kidding right? You are surrounded by it every single day in almost every facet of your life. It doesn't have to be pushed anymore.

Or it might be that the religious are more accepting and not as intolerant.

I think you missed my point Chosen. Secularism allows for religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the right to not follow a certain faith. Religion insists there is only one way. Another way of putting it, when was the last time someone killed in the name of secularism?

Uh how 'bout the war we are currently in.

Secularism - the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

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

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.