Four items of possible controversy

From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 13:58:53 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Kirk Durston's response"

    First of all, I see on the Texas Freedom Network site (www.tfn.org) that
    after all the flak in Texas about the biology textbooks, the
    "responsible" side (i.e. my position <G>)" prevailed -- on a unanimous
    vote -- to certify 14 texts which DO NOT include the teaching of "the
    fallacies of evolution."

    Some of my conservative friends are a bit unhappy, it seems.

    The site above is a good source, BTW, for what is going on in Texas.
    Contrary to reports, some of the inhabitants thereof are quite rational
    people.

    Anyhow -- here ae the four items. Any of them might be a takeoff point
    for an interesting discussion:

    The first is from a U of Texas professor, and makes pretty good sense to
    me. But some here may think that certainty -- absolute certainty -- is
    attainable. Does anyone wish to argue that position?

    "I think absolute certainty is dangerous. I have moral and political
    convictions and respect others who do, but I think people should be open
    to the possibility that their belief system could be just a bit off or
    maybe all wrong. That is something that philosophers and scientists (at
    least the good ones) agree on."

    --University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen, explaining in a
    column why "absolute certainty" of one's own particular religious beliefs
    is problematic.
    http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/viewpoints/stories/102203dnedijensen.9f
    726.html
    <http://64.4.18.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=27849396d4fbb3eead25dd
    a709177dba&lat=1068569763&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2edallasnews%2ecom
    %2fopinion%2fviewpoints%2fstories%2f102203dnedijensen%2e9f726%2ehtml>

    The 2nd is from Richard Dawkins, and, again, makes sense.

    "Imagine that there is a well-organised and well-financed group of
    nutters, implacably convinced that the Roman Empire never existed.
    Hadrian's Wall, Verulamium, Pompeii Rome itself are all planted fakes.
    The Latin language, for all its rich literature and its Romance language
    grandchildren, is a Victorian fabrication. The Rome deniers are, no
    doubt, harmless wingnuts, more harmless than the Holocaust deniers whom
    they resemble. Smile and be tolerant, just as we smile at the Flat Earth
    Society. But your tolerance might wear thin if you happen to be a
    lifelong scholar and teacher of Roman history, language or literature.
    You suddenly find yourself obliged to interrupt your magnum opus on the
    Odes of Horace in order to devote time and effort to rebutting a
    well-financed propaganda campaign claiming that the entire classical
    world that you love never existed."

    --Oxford Professor of Zoology Richard Dawkins, drawing an analogy to the
    intelligent design community's assault-campaign on evolution.
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-
    10-25&id=3647
    <http://64.4.18.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=d430d87472f886558f261b
    17fd72a111&lat=1068569873&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2espectator%2eco%2
    euk%2farticle%2ephp3%3ftable%3dold%26section%3dcurrent%26issue%3d2003%2d1
    0%2d25%26id%3d3647>

    The third points out who is bankrolling a fight against a certain
    Episcopal priest. The interesting issue here is not the cause, but how
    some political / religious fights are financed. And who does them.

    The movement fighting the consecration of an openly gay Episcopal priest
    as bishop is bankrolled by a select few far-right groups and individuals,
    including Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr, a major donor to the Discovery
    Institute as well as an organization promoting Christian
    Reconstructionism.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9022-2003Oct23.html
    <http://64.4.18.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=60c1185af0847ff2af84c0
    e31358a1fa&lat=1068570011&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ewashingtonpost%2
    ecom%2fwp%2ddyn%2farticles%2fA9022%2d2003Oct23%2ehtml>

    The fourth is the hardest one. Here is a speech writer explaining Bush's
    view. I don't for a minute think that George Bush holds this view in a
    Christian sense -- that is -- I fully believe he holds any human life to
    be equally valuable with his. But in a pragmatic sense, perhaps the
    speaker has a point to make.

    "To put it simply, it's a fairly radical belief that a child in an
    African village whose parents are dying of AIDS has the same importance
    before God as the president of the United States"

    -- Michael Gerson, chief speechwriter for President Bush and an important
    White House policy adviser who is a born-again Christian, explaining the
    president's view on worldwide human rights issues.
    (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/politics/26RELI.html?hp
    <http://64.4.18.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=f74e82be1ab3c62eb41d9c
    3c72160d53&lat=1068570068&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f
    2003%2f10%2f26%2fpolitics%2f26RELI%2ehtml%3fhp>)

    Peace to all who disagree with me.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    ________________________________________________________________
    The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 14:00:04 EST