home
RSS
February 13th, 2012
04:50 AM ET

Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Monday, February 13

By Dan Merica, CNN

Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.

From the Blog:

CNN: At church where Houston got start, congregants gather to mourn
As the sun rose the morning after Whitney Houston's death, congregants at the Baptist church where she began her singing career as a member of the junior gospel choir to mourn, pray and share stories of the pop superstar.

CNN: Mrs. Obama urges faith-based groups to join healthy eating campaign
First Lady Michelle Obama made a stop at the Northland Church in Florida Saturday, bringing her healthy-eating campaign to a crowd that included religious organizations affiliated with a broad swath of faiths and congregations.

Reaction to contraception compromise has been mixed.

CNN: Catholic bishops group denounces contraception compromise
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced President Barack Obama's compromise over whether to require religiously affiliated institutions to provide contraception to female employees, saying the proposal raises "serious moral concerns," according to a statement posted on its website late Friday.

Belief on TV:

Nicki Minaj, LL Cool J get religious at the Grammys:

Award shows are a hotbed for outlandish outfits and revealing dresses. But who would have thought the 2012 Grammys would see someone wearing something that mixed a red nun’s habit and a little red riding hood costume?

Nicki Minaj, a Grammy nominated female rap artist, walked the red carpet on Sunday night wearing exactly that while strutting arm-in-arm with an older man dressed up as a bishop. And that was not the only religious reference during the show.

Rapper and host LL Cool J opened the show with a Christian prayer in honor of the late Whitney Houston.

“Heavenly father we thank you for sharing our sister Whitney with us. Today our thoughts are with her daughter, her mother and all of her loved ones. And although she is gone too soon, we remain truly blessed to have been touched by her beautiful spirit and to have her lasting legacy of music to cherish and share forever.”

And Minaj, who turned heads with her earlier wardrobe choice, upped the ante with her performance of “Roman’s Holiday” when she continued her religion themed night by simulating an exorcism on stage. The performance not only featured the aforementioned bishop, but Minaj was also backed up by a choir singing "Come All Ye Faithful."

As one might expect, the performance caused a stir. Some fans tweeted that they enjoyed the uniqueness of the performance, while others called the prime time exorcism "sacrilegious."

The Episcopal Church even fact checked Minaj by (@iamepiscopalian) retweeting“That priest was wearing an Anglican Collar in a confessional…I don't think so. Get it right #GRAMMYs.”

Enlightening Reads:

Catholic Sun: HHS mandate worries Catholic business owners
When President Barack Obama announced Feb. 10 that religious employers would not have to offer contraception and sterilization free of charge through their health plans, he made it clear that their insurance companies would still be compelled to do so.

Jewish Journal: Grandson of Auschwitz survivor takes the ice for Germany
More than 65 years ago Kurt Kaufmann was liberated from the Auschwitz concentration camp. This weekend his U.S.-born grandson, Evan Kaufmann, is taking the ice for the German national hockey team.

U.S. Catholic: How can Catholics deal with being ‘politically homeless’?
The question of which political party is more in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church is always bound to spark some heated debate. Some make the argument that a Catholic can never vote for a Democrat, while others say the Republicans are woefully out of touch with the church’s ideals on a number of social issues. So where does that leave Catholic voters?

Excerpt of the Day:

There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.

In an opinion piece, Katherine Stewart of the Guardian discuses what she calls “a disturbing trend” of anti-evolution bills trying to undermine public education. In Stewart’s opinion, these bills are reminiscent of previous attacks on evolution.

Today’s Opinion:

CNN: My Take: Why I’m a Catholic for contraception
I have been a Catholic my whole life. Baptized as a baby and confirmed in the seventh grade, I attended weekly catechism classes and received a Jesuit education. Never once did the opinion of the church on a person's use of contraceptives surface.

Washington Post: You can’t ‘compromise’ on religious liberty
Hasn’t it always been liberals telling us to keep religion out of politics, legislation and government? Now, our liberal president and his administration have proven that they are committed to trying to do just that. The federal government has targeted Catholics and pro-life religiously affiliated organizations, schools, and hospitals by using the power granted to the executive branch in ObamaCare.

Join the conversation…

CNN: Mixed Catholic reaction to revised White House contraception plan
As word trickled out of a White House compromise with Catholic groups on its rule around contraception coverage on Friday morning, administration officials took to the phones to sell the plan to religious leaders across the spectrum.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (224 Responses)
  1. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    Proven

    February 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Lying is unethical.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not to mention, it's immoral. I thought God made believers moral.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      Powerful

      February 13, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • just sayin

      Believers are not perfect they are forgiven. Prayer guy is telling the Truth so it is a moot point.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nah, you're a fraud, just sayin'. You are no more a Christian than I'm a Buddhist. Get off it, ya fake.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • Bam Bam

      How did you come to the conclusion that Christians are forgiven? The general concensus amongst the major theologians throughout history is that the elect are unknowable, and that a great many who think they are heaven-bound Christians are doomed.

      I guess you elected yourself into heaven. No worries though. There is no more evidence or likelihood that heaven exists than there is evidence that you will die and find yourself in Bedrock with the Flintstones and the Rubbles.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • just sayin

      I know who I have believed and am persuaded that He (God) is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him (God) against that day.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Atheism is not just saying prayer changes diapers

      I am doomed. My teeth already feel gnashy. Left out when I was sure I was in. The elect, the saved, they are all inside, enjoying Flying Spaghetti Monster's beer volcano and stripper factory, while us Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Mormons and Hindus and Jews are all condemned to bicker with each other for the rest of eternity as we hand-clean port-a-potties. All because we chose the wrong God.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      Pervasive

      February 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
      Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
      Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam.
      Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
      Spam spam spam spam!

      February 14, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  2. Demon is a fraud

    The poster demon is a fraud. Demon possessed do not know they have a demon, they like yup think they are normal a demon would not divulge that information unless commanded by one who has authority.

    February 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • .......

      You seem to know quite well how demons work, pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. You sir are mentally challenged.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      dotty for your own well being, have your own soul checked by a professional.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • .

      "have your own soul checked by a professional."

      prayer changes things through spouting lies through their soul dead hosts

      February 13, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      may already be too late sorry for you.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • .

      "may already be too late sorry for you."

      You should know since you'll be burning in hell.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      You are mistaken, though deserving of hell and at one time lost I am now adopted into God's family through the cross of Jesus Christ, acceptable to God and with a place in Glory reserved.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Bam Bam

      If you actually knew theology and your scripture, you would know that the elect are unknown and unknowable. You are the one who decided you are going to heaven. Your certainty and your behavior here under your various prayer troll guises might come off as arrogance to the Big Guy.

      Be afraid. God hates those who are not God-fearing, and you are just too smug and lacking in humility to be safe.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      Romans 8 :28 – 39, 9 :1

      February 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • LOL

      "Romans 8 :28 – 39, 9 :1"

      It's too much of a troll to get that he's not going to heaven but to hell for it's stupid behavior on this blog.

      February 14, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  3. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things,

    February 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Children are not healthy for other living things

      They step on ants, and salt slugs, and pull the cat's tail!

      February 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Nope

      **The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs."""""`~~~~

      February 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Christians are not allowed near children and other living things

      Christians rape and molest your children, keep them away from them!

      February 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • bringoutyourdead

      demons gather in abject fear of prayer spouting lies through their soul dead hosts

      February 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • nope

      nope.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Demon

      Prayer changes things through spouting lies through their soul dead hosts

      February 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • Yup

      "nope

      nope."

      More desperation for the xtians! LMAO!

      February 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      demon is a fraud

      February 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Yup

      “demon is a fraud”
      “demons gather in abject fear of prayer spouting lies through their soul dead hosts”

      So you did lie therefore; prayer changes things through spouting lies through their soul dead hosts

      LMAO!!!!!!!!

      February 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Demon is a fraud

      Reply for the spiritually and mentally challenged posted above.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Christians are not allowed near children and other living things

      "Demon is a fraud

      Reply for the spiritually and mentally challenged posted above."

      Yes you are mentally challenged.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  4. Doc Vestibule

    THE RASON RALLY KEEPS GETTING BIGGER
    This March 24th, the world's largest gathering ever of secularists is set to happen in Washington.
    Guest Speakers include:
    Richard Dawkins, Dr. Greg Graffin and Bad Religion, Adam Sava.ge, PZ Meyers, Lawrence Krauss, Ron Lindsay, Congressman Pete Stark and many other!
    Come join your non-theist brethren and let the world know:
    “We’re huge, we’re everywhere, and we’re growing.”

    February 13, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Moniker

      Carry your atheism proudly!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Observer

      Shabby things, you should shuffle in the shadows so as to be unnoticed.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Prayer for the country

      God keep our land
      Prayer borrowed from the Canadian national anthem

      February 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
  5. Makes No Sense, Must Have a Deeper Meaning

    Why is it that the belief blog is overrun by angry atheists? Not saying that more atheists read it, just that atheists clearly feel the need to be much more vocal about their non belief.

    I kinda feel bad for you guys because 95% of you seem really angry. You also come off as so desperate to prove your point that you put all intellectual honesty aside.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You mean like you, using a different moniker every time you post?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • William Demuth

      You wonder why the persecuted rebell against your boot on their throat?

      You will be upon the gallows before you get!

      Pay back is coming my friend, we have had enough!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Observer

      Your empty threats bore me William. Atheists, we'll bury you deep.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Makes No Sense, Must Have a Deeper Meaning

      Tom – I'm not angry and I don't believe my post came across as angry. I'm simpy asking a question to which I find intriguing. I've pointed out my observations and would like some clarification. You, however, avoided the question at hand and just turned the blame back to me. Very effective political strategy, but very dishonest and shows the deceit of the person posting.

      Btw this is an anonymous blog so changing monikers doesn't really do anything. Once you post your actual name then I will take your moniker changing claim somewhat serious.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Religion makes no sense

      I just LOVE angry Christians who post angrily at what they perceive are angry atheists. No hypocrisy there!

      If Christianity were true, then its followers would behave more morally than every one else. Many studies have shown that to be quite false, especially in areas of major crime and support of torture.

      If Christianity were true, Christians would be able to provide solid arguments supporting their case. They not only cannot; they resort to fallacious argumentation – because there basic position has no support. They are left with nothing but non sequiturs and appeals to fear.

      If Christianity were true, Christians wold be nicer and more tolerant, instead of being exactly the opposite.

      If Christians actually believed deep down in what they pretend to believe in, they would NEVER behave the way they do for fear of burning for the rest of eternity. Let's face it: the OP's statements by his own scripture destine him for an eternal stint in Jesus' Easy Bake Oven. But on he goes. At a very fundamental level, he just cannot believe it or he would not do that.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Observer

      Actually I suspect the Muslims will, but as for you Christians, you fight like girls.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Observer2

      Observer and William-

      Did you guys get that abilify on board today? Let's up it to 30 mg.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You first, honey, and be sure to include your phone number and e-mail.

      I post under this handle on these threads. Period. You, on the other hand, are a poseur. I am not angry at anything but the sanctimonious, halo-polishing, self-satisfied thumpers who think fundie Christianity is the only "true" way to morality or meaning in life.

      I am gainfully and successfully employed, married for decades, pay my taxes, contribute to charity and am active in my community. I am far from "unreliable", but have it your way. I don't care what you believe as long as you keep your religious mumbo-jumbo off my rights and privileges as a citizen.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • Makes No Sense, Must Have a Deeper Meaning

      religion no deeper....

      We NEED Jesus because we are imperfect. Being a Christian is not about being perfect, it's about admitting that we are fundamentally flawed and can never live up to expectations. We should try and go out and be good, honest people, and I know many who are. But if you think Christianity is about its adherents being perfect people then you're severely mistaken on what it's about my friend.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Would you adopt me? I need the facade of normalicy!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Answer

      The angry religious tools are always hoping that there will be a day where they can successfully pass off their hatred as coming from others. No luck for your lot today.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • William Demuth, child of God

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul1XxsYxQjc&w=420&h=315]

      February 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Religion makes no sense

      @ Makes No: You are in a unique position to understand why the myth of atheist anger is totally false.

      As you see, you posted a statement, probably feeling no anger whatsoever. Your post was perceived as angry by others here, who said so. The problem is mostly the perception of the person making the judgement, not any actual anger on the part of the person judged.

      Admittedly, there are a few on both sides – yes, there are clearly a number of angry religious people here – but a great many atheists are either attempting to refute a point of view that has actively oppressed their kind for centuries, or they are just entertaining themselves at the expense of a long-time oppressor.

      Oppressor? Well, just ask yourself what happened to non-believers for the over-a-thousand-years span when Christianity had political dominance. Pretty ugly, wasn't it?

      And honestly, many of us on either side came here to intelligently debate the subject, but the internet being what it is, it quickly sank into the usual mud wrestling. So some of us enjoy an occasional mud wrestle. As do you, or you would not be here.

      Anger? I am usually laughing!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Answer

      @Religion makes no sense

      What you said is quite right. I laugh at them all the time.

      It's so hard not to laugh at such useless people in this world. 🙂

      February 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Ironicus

      "makes no sense-" is nothing but a tone-troll.
      Tone trolls do nothing but pretend others are "angry, etc" when this is clearly not the case. It is a form of ad hominem attack.
      Not worth talking to.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm not your "friend" and I'm well aware that Christians aren't perfect. They just spend all their time pointing out how imperfect everyone else is and blaming it on a lack of belief.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Actually I am quite comfortable with the idea of seeking vengance againt thiests.

      If we are victorious, we shall write history and proclaim our greatness.

      If we are not, who cares.

      Religion must be destroyed by pitting its followers against each other.

      I mean do you SERIOUSLY believe Americans care about Afghanistan? We just want the Jesus freaks and the towel heads to slaughter each other.

      So far it seems to be working!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Observer2

      All right William, let's consider geodon 20 mg IM. We'll repeat at 2 h intervals.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • J.R.

      William, that is just plain offensive. And it's not even a towel. It's techically a little sheet. So the correct term would be "little sheet heads".

      February 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      J.R.

      Little sheet, like in diaper?

      Diaper heads it is!

      February 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Why do believers feel that their lies have to be taught as truth and science? Why do they feel that they have to poison childrens' minds and continue to lower America's standing in the first world by destroying its math, science and medicine?

      February 13, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
  6. Halo of Flies

    I saw Sports Fan yesterday. He was "Brady-ing". I think the death of Whitney Houston reminded him of Auto Racing. It was sad seeing him prostrate and depressed. He is usually so up-beat.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • dats right

      Eli Manning sucks toad turds.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • William Demuth

      I wonder if people will start Whitneying?

      I hope not, I find watching junkies frothing at the mouth throws me off my Kibble

      February 13, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Halo of Flies

      To "Bobby Brown" someone; The act of assisting someone who is severely constipated by putting your finger in their ass to help get the poo out.

      Example: Dude, my lady was so constipated she asked me to Bobby Brown that Whitney Houston ass, you know what Im sayin?

      February 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  7. Hmmmm

    Are real life atheists as hateful and condescending as they are in the comments section? They don't seem to be a bunch that I would want to rely on.

    February 13, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Heavenly Hash In My Panties

      Can you help me with the Heavenly Hash in my panties?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by Hmmmm contains both the Circ-umstantial Ad Hominem fallacy, and the Complex Question fallacy.

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6

      February 13, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Hmmmm

      @fallacy

      Do you ever bring anything productive to the conversation or do you only post the same garbage about fallacies everytime? Also, care to address why you never point out the exact same fallacies for atheist posts? That would be what we call the biased fallacy my friend.

      If you'd like to address my original post or anyswer my question above then please feel free.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • William Demuth

      Hmm

      We are merely human. We have all the good and bad everyone else has.

      As for relying on them, or anyone else I would advise against it.

      We ALL have our own agendas, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

      In a sense Atheism is merely accepting that both individually AND collectively, we are on our own!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why don't you do it for YOURSELF, Hmmmm? If you can find fallacies on the site that FS posted, go right ahead and cite chapter and verse as it applies to the posts you find so off-putting. What's stopping you?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • jimtanker

      @ Hmmm

      If you would read what fallacy is posting and do a little research you would see how he is trying to educate you and make you a better person. When you spout gibberish as you do you will not be taken seriously by any educated person.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Hmmmm

      @jimtanker

      Haha you're one to talk.....Guess you've never gone back and read the trash that you typically post which has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. Have fun living in lala land, whatever helps you sleep at night.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Heavenly Hash In My Panties@Hmmmm

      Read Spinoza and everything will be cleared up for you.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      If I could successfully identify an argument I might be better qualified to identify a fallacy.

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

      February 13, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Hmmmm

      @tom, tom

      What's stopping me is that it's a complete waste of time. Just pointing out his bias and selective posting which seems to have angered you.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • But that was never five minutes just now!

      Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

      Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

      Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

      Man: What?

      A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

      M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

      A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

      M: Oh! Oh I see!

      A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

      M: Oh...Sorry...

      A: Not at all!

      A: (under his breath) stupid git.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, guess what, Hmmm? It isn't YOUR time. How I choose to spend it is none of your concern.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • sam

      I forgot – why are we responding to this boring troll?

      February 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • .....

      "Are real life atheists as hateful and condescending as they are in the comments section? They don't seem to be a bunch that I would want to rely on."

      How's that log doing in your eye. Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Based on your question it would appear you have never met an athiest in real life. Try getting off of the computer and go meet some. Use the old google to find a local athiest club and drop by for a visit.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Subsequent posts by Hmmmm after the root post contain the loaded language fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy, and other common fallacies.

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#H6

      February 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
  8. Heavenly Hash In My Panties

    Did god create sin?

    February 13, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I don't know.

      Is that ice cream in your panties, or really good smoke?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Heavenly Hash In My Panties@Doc Vestibule

      LMAO! Really good erb is the only way I roll, icecream for the munchies.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  9. William Demuth

    Does anyone else see the Machiavellian side to what Obama has done?

    The Church still pays (Because insurance companies only worship the buck, and will build the birth control costs into their coverage whether they like it or not)

    Yet in their backwards wisdom, the right is starting to rail against birth control!

    Woman do NOT like when old white men stick their noses into their uteruses!

    February 13, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • JohnR

      Yes, Obama is being dishonest. Instead of advocating for a socialized system which covers contraception, he wants to issue an imperial edict to make employers pay for things they don't believe in, restoking the fires of bitter culture wars in the process. He's coming very close to losing my vote.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • William Demuth

      Dishonest? He stated his aim. Covered birth control for ALL woman.

      He has achieved his aim. Where was the lie?

      February 13, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • JohnR

      It's not exactly an achievement to issue an executive order. He'll have achieved his aim when he doesn't manage to bungle away the election. And dishonesty takes many forms. He and his allies are conflating the issue of whether women should have a right of access to contraception with the issue of obliging specific third parties to pay for it. I have the right to eat meat if I like. that doesn't mean that PeTA has to buy me a steak dinner. What goes around does indeed tend to come around and those who abuse the power of executive orders are setting us all up for some really bad times when we have a President Santorum or someone of his ilk in the White House.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Appalling

      Is Obama Machiavellian when he runs scared when his strange private insurance-based healthcare system shows its unavoidable flaws?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • William Demuth

      JohnR

      One’s objective must be to achieve ones objective, unless you are so starry eyed that you believe ANY politician has egalitarian motivations?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Primewonk

      hippy wrote, " i expect they do there fuc.king jobs! teaching is a job like that of anyother, you do what you are told and you teach what you are told to teach as well... no personal feelings... if this is too hard then that teacher should find a new job elsewhere!"

      You must not get out much. Hell, in Minnesota 25% of public school teachers admit to teaching creationism in class. Want to bet what it is in Tennessee, or Mississippi?

      February 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  10. Nonimus

    "There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: "

    No wonder, "Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading..."
    ('U.S. Teens Lag as China Soars on International Test'; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html)

    February 13, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Appalling.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • JohnR

      You can't blame ALL of America's educational failings on anti-evolutionary pinheads. Math scores suck, reading scores suck, foreign language instruction is all but non-existant. These aren't all the creationists' fault, anti-scientific pinheads though the creationists clearly are.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • William Demuth

      John

      Studying the Bible, and rejecting the study of science texts is a KEY factor in the blossoming ignorance here in the States.

      With my own eyes I have seen the future growing dimmer by the generation.

      Ironically, even those who choose to study scripture diligently, rarely seem to get it!

      February 13, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • JohnR

      Yes, it's a key factor, but not the only factor and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. If you really give a damn about reversing the blossoming ignorance, don't obsess single-mindedly on the creationists. Include them, but don't exclude other factors.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • William Demuth

      JohnR

      I don't frankly concern myself with them at all.

      I DO on the other hand concern myself with a society that holds no one accountable for anything.

      The Bible Thumpers, the Teachers unions, the indifferent parents.

      We are headed for a fall one might say was of Biblical proportions.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • JohnR

      I'm with you on that one, William!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      I think a big problem is the no child left behind thing. If the kid is too stupid to pass the first time, don't pass them the second time around just because you don't want to make them feel bad being the oldest kid in their class.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • great intellect my ass

      the best knows it was 26 in the sixth grade

      February 13, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • William Demuth

      The truly funny thing is motivation.

      The churches need ignorant people to breed to continue the cycle of dependency.

      Thats why they hate birth control and abortion.

      The truth is the world is a MUCH better place with both of them. Undesired children do NOT live happily ever after.

      In fact Our prisons are filled with them.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      @ great,
      Way to attack me instead of my post. Is the fact that you were one of those kids the reason you don't like people who oppose it? Or is it that you have a kid who had to use this program to even get into high school?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Nonimus

      @JohnR,
      That is a valid point. It's not all due to the anti-evolution push. We need to do more, but science education, real science, is a start.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  11. AGuest9

    Well, HERE'S a definite problem: "Catholic Sun: HHS mandate worries Catholic business owners"

    No separation there. A business owner CANNOT hide behind his belief system. The church, right or wrong, may claim separation as their grounds for not complying with this measure, but a business may not.

    February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • William Demuth

      Capitalism versus the church.

      If the cults don't provide benefits, they won’t be able to compete. The days of cheap labor shall draw to a close soon enough!

      But if they don’t:

      I wonder if the Jewish organizations will stop covering trichinosis?

      I wonder if the Muslim organizations will stop treating alcoholism?

      I wonder if the Jehovah’s organizations will stop covering blood transfusions?

      If we let every subset of the cult of Abraham pick and choose what is covered, our society will fall.

      And rightfully so!

      February 13, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • JohnR

      Why would Jews stop covering treatments for trichinosis or the Muslims stop treating for alcoholism? Where in their religions does it say that such TREATMENTS are wrong? The JW's and blood transfusions are an apt analogy. But if you want to be covered for blood transfusions, it shouldn't be hard to find employment outside of the Watchtower Society.

      Meanwhile, the premise that all employee benefits must be equal across the board is a strange one. I've had jobs with lousy benefits and now have one with great benefit, but a less than middling salary. Everyone has an inherent right to benefits at least as good as mine? Cool. But fair's fair: I assert my right to a salary at least as good as the top earners.

      If people really want to make not just health care narrowly construed as care for one's health when sick or injured, but things like contraception and ED treatments a RIGHT, then advocate for socialized medicine. If you win that argument, then the whole issue of what employers have to pay for is off the table.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • William Demuth

      JohnR

      You don't know any Muslims or Jews do you?

      Its the same reason some Christian cults might not treat AIDS. They consider it a self inflicted injury.

      You see, they want YOU to do as your told, or die of the consequences.

      Perhaps more time focusing on the love life of their preachers, and less on the PRIVATE behavior of others.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Nonimus

      @JohnR,
      Again, some valid points. Although, "it shouldn't be hard to find employment outside of the Watchtower Society," doesn't work quite as well for Catholic hospitals, in some regions they are the only ones available.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
  12. William Demuth

    Good Morning!

    Great to see the battle continues!

    February 13, 2012 at 9:55 am |

    • What's new after a week of the crisis of contraception?

      February 13, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • AGuest9

      Good Morning, William! Like the coyote and the sheep dog clocking in. 🙂

      February 13, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • jimtanker

      The ongoing battle between logic/reason and the religious folks.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:00 am |
  13. Terry

    You do not need to read the bible to believe in God. And you do not need to quote the bible as proof of God. Look around you.Proof of Him is everywhere. Start with your children's eyes. Look into them and see the love there. That is where you will find the love of God.

    February 13, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      No, that's where I find the love of my child.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • This Heaven (Gilmour/Gilmour - Samson)

      All the pieces fall into place
      When we walk these fields
      And I reach out to touch your face
      This earthly heaven is enough for me

      So break the bread and pour the wine
      I need no blessings but I'm counting mine
      Life is much more than money buys
      When I see the faith in my children's eyes

      I've felt the power in a holy place
      And wished for comfort when in need
      Now I'm here in a state of grace
      This earthly heaven is enough for me

      So break the bread and pour the wine
      I need no blessings but I'm counting mine
      Life is much more than money buys
      When I see the faith in my children's eyes

      February 13, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • Bob

      Look into the eyes of a suffering victim of any of the multiple disfiguring, debilitating, painful diseases that your "loving" god has purportedly created. Then you might understand that Christian god as described in the bible is not loving, doesn't give a hoot about human suffering, and in fact does not exist.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Be free of Christianity and other supersti-tions in 2012.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      February 13, 2012 at 9:52 am |

    • Bob! You're back. Where's your goat, man?

      February 13, 2012 at 9:54 am |

    • you're back. Where's your , ?

      February 13, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • AGuest9

      My childrens' eyes is where I see their love for me. I created them with their mother, there is no mythical third-party, like we were taught in school.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:07 am |

    • ! You're back. Where's your , ?

      February 13, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • JohnR

      Look at nature! Look at the ants devouring a writhing worm alive! Look at the gazelle being slowly suffocated by the cheetah!

      Oh, wait. That's right. You find god in the unrealistic, Disney movie version of nature that you, a well fed omnivore in little danger of attack, see when you see a pretty sunset or enjoy the waves lapping on the beach, as the beached clams slowly desiccate ...

      February 13, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Heavenly Hash In My Panties@Terry

      Did God create the skid marks in your trousers?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:16 am |
  14. Brad

    "There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February." As a Christian and as a molecular biologist I will go with what I believe to be most certainly true: life has developed by a process of evolution essentially according to Darwinist principles as we understand and continue to develop them.

    February 13, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • Chad

      hmm..

      a. darwins phyletic gradualism dead, scientists indicted for willfully ignoring the fossil record
      b. every year the vertebrate fossils that are found reinforce the fact that there is no random/"natural" process that can explain the appearance of fish, birds, land animals and humans (those specifically called out in the bible as being creations of God).

      dotted lines in the text books.. that's what is so confidently trumpeted as proof that the God of Abraham doesnt exist. Willful ignorance

      February 13, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      a) as Richard Dawkins pointed out, constant-rate gradualism is not present in the professional literature. The term phyletic gradualism is usually used as a straw man argument by proponent of punctuated equilibrium.

      b) evidence for evolution does not come exclusively from teh fossil record.
      Vestigial features, study of ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, examining pseudogenes, study of endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl all add to the modern evolutionary synthesis. We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish.
      If you would like to see exactly how the improbable can happen, you can use the computer simulation of life's development called Avida.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • Brad

      Interesting that you would invoke random/"natural" processes when few people do – I suspect a straw man is being set up. Mutations are random events, but the environment in which natural selection works, the world as it is, defines the non-random trajectories of evolutionary change.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Brad

      Sorry Doc, that was @Chad.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • hippypoet

      totally brad, i only think its wrong to teach one and not the other – i know i am normally the dude bashing god in most cases but i believe in fairness no matter what...i took a bite of my daughters chicken fingers and then proceeded to then take a bite out of my 10 month old son's grilled cheese.... no that he'd notice or even care! I think we should if we are to teach any 1 of them (theories) we then should show how not biased we are and teach all possible answers.

      I didn't know your a molecular biologist....does that ever come in conflict with being a christian? or just the belief in god rather?

      February 13, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Brad
      No worries – I kind figured, given the content...
      The 5 laws in the theory of evolution have only been strengthened in the 150 years since they were first articulated. Even the Pope recognizes it as FACT.

      In other interesting evolutionary news – paleolithic cave paintings have been found in Spain! Evidence that neanderthal man had the imagination. Thus far, the only dating method used has been radio-carbon dating – which puts the drawing's age right at teh cusp of how far back carbon14 dating can go with any accuracy – to about 43,000 years. Next year, there will be other dating methods used, but it looks like they're about 13,000 years older than the earliest ones we've yet found!

      February 13, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Flinders, the butler

      Chad,
      Yahweh Sabaoth, the "god of the armies", the "god of Abraham" .... THAT concept EVOLVED !
      ....
      ....
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&w=640&h=360]

      February 13, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • Brad

      Good morning hippypoet. I recognize theistic evolution as many believing scientists do. The term sounds uncomfortably close to intelligent design, so biologos is a new term for it that isn't yet well-known. It's an extension of an old idea dating to St. Augustine's day. God is the prime cause of creation, but creation proceeds according to natural laws. This is in conflict with literalists and creationists, as you can well imagine, but It is fairly broadly accepted among Christian denominations.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • hippypoet

      well at least that idea has more realism to it then the latter of this is how is was and is since the beginning idea!
      Granted we still disagree on the god aspect, that part i think will stay that way for some time.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      I have no problem with both theories being taught. I think a good curriculum might go like this: There are 2 theories about the origins of life on earth. The 1st is that God created us. Now for the rest of the school year we will study evolution.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Brad

      What's the question for today, hippypoet?

      February 13, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @lunchbreaker
      I like it.
      Theory #1 – Goddidit.
      For the different ways in which different Gods created the Earth, please sign up for the Comparative Mythology class down the hall.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • Brad

      lunchbreaker and doc-

      Properly, creation belongs to metaphysics, and we're all too pragmatic for that.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • hippypoet

      brad, i don't think we are too pragmatic but perhaps too literal in our appications of knowledge... just a thought.
      i know when i was dealing with metaphysics i loved it.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      hippypoet, that is ridiculous. Schools teach science, not religious belief. There is no scientific 'theory' behind creationism; it's religious belief and nothing more.

      If schools are required to present all possible religious beliefs about the universe, fine. But that ain't science. You really seem a bit brighter than that.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Brad

      I thought hippypoet was bringing up metaphysics. That's perfectly legitimate.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Tom
      The study/search for spiritual/metaphysical truth is indeed perfectly legitimate!
      We're all in agreement that it doesn't belong in a science classroom, but that doesn't preclude it from being taught in a different one. Schools are places where questioning should be encouraged – and that includes questions that don't fit neatly in the scope of the materialistic world.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      As I said, that's fine as long as schools are not forced to teach creationism as anything more than a religious belief. If they're forced to include creationism as a 'theory' as part of science, that is wrong.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • hippypoet

      tom, my only point was that if you are to teach anything then shouldn't you teach everything or isn't that just as biased!

      i realize that evolution no matter how much i agree with it is still a theory, and since the question of where did we come from was asked people have fought over what to teach...why not teach every possibility and then allow for discussion?
      School is a place to learn, not be brainwashed. Churches teaching creationism and schools teaching evolution are parallels of stupidity and arrogence! WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
      Teach every angle and no angle is then unseen!

      February 13, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • jimtanker

      HP,

      You are completely wrong on your reasoning. There is evidence for evolution and your definition of theory is incorrect. A scientific theory is an explanation that fits the current evidence on the subject.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • hippypoet

      i never gave a definition of the word theory,so i am neither correct nor am i incorrect!
      i made an a$sertion that creationism evolution are equals, that is very easily argued, but not the point! The point was that school views itself above teaching something, and that is just wrong. Schools teach ideas all the time and mythology...so why not religious beliefs but outside the world of religion. creationism can be taught without any religious ties to it – its simply just another IDEA on who we got to be what we are.
      LIFE/DEATH INHALE/EXHALE BORN/DIE
      By not teaching something that counters your lesson you are being biased. Every science teacher knows that there are opposites in all things, so why not present them in every aspect of school to better grow the inquisitorial mind!

      February 13, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Brad

      As I said implied, sardonically, we are too pragmatic and utilitarian in education. I agree with hippypoet. Why neglect philosophy and critical examination of ideas, including the underpinnings of science? Somehow we have to bring up students who can be, when called on, "paradigm-busters". Innovation depends on it.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Primewonk

      " i only think its wrong to teach one and not the other – i know i am normally the dude bashing god in most cases but i believe in fairness no matter what...i took a bite of my daughters chicken fingers and then proceeded to then take a bite out of my 10 month old son's grilled cheese.... no that he'd notice or even care! I think we should if we are to teach any 1 of them (theories) we then should show how not biased we are and teach all possible answers."

      So you think we should teach all the theories that explain the diversification of life on earth?

      Good. So do all the scientists.

      The next step is to determine what are all the theories that explain the diversification of life on earth.

      Let's play a game to determine this. We'll take turns naming a scientifically confirmed theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. Whoever names the most, wins – OK?

      Since it's my game, I'll go first –

      The theory of evolution.

      Now it's your turn to name a scientifically valid confirmed theory that explains the diversification of life on earth. After you go, it will be my turn again.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • hippypoet

      @Primewonk – I have no need of valid arguments, only ideas for one to dwell on and form there own conclusions, this is metaphysics 101... valid theories are for science, here is where ideas are born, raised, and beaten to the use of them is no more.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Thank you, Prime. I agree. It's fine to present creationism as an idea in a comparative religion class; it is NOT fine to call it a 'theory'. It isn't one, unless one disregards the scientific definition of the word "theory".

      Furthermore, that isn't what lawmakers in the states shown above intend. They are only interested in suppressing the teaching of evolution, not in just getting 'equal time' for creationism.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      As to the idea that schools should teach "everything", I'll guess you haven't been in one in quite a while. Schools barely have time to teach anything at all other than how to pass the state-mandated tests. If you think for a minute there's some sort of relaxed, laid-back atmosphere where there's sufficient time to discuss every possible theory, idea, or brain-fart, you're sadly mistaken.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • JohnR

      I'm a proponent of punctuated equilibrium and certainly prefer Gould and Eldredge to Dawkins and his idiotic notion of phenotypes as mere "vehicles" for genes. But the point is that even if one rarely finds fossils truly intermediate between species, there are explicable reasons for that and 'rarely' doesn't mean NEVER. As for phylogenetic gradualism, it is totally OBVIOUS that there are intermediate SPECIES galore between the earliest forms of a given type of animal and later forms. We may well never have a fossil that is without question intermediate between ho-mo habilis and ho-mo erectus or ho-mo erectus and ho-mo sapiens, but ho-mo erectus is itself intermediate between ho-mo habilis and ho-mo sapiens. No straw man here!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • hippypoet

      mistaken i may be in the time allowed for discussion, but all you have done for an argument against is show another faliure in the schooling system – it only adds to the sub-point of mine – the way we teach needs to be look at and torn apart piece by piece. I know i got nearly nothing worth while from what i was taught...i learned things on my own, self study and the like... which btw, most schools frown upon because then you are ahead of the cl@ss and thats bad for some reason...

      tom – baby steps, thats all... first lets give the children something worth learning then focus on getting them more time to learn it. The school year is a long one, and certain things aren't needed as much as learning how to use your head and think!
      This is the area we most lack here in America...the ability to process thoughts, a – b, is it really that hard?

      February 13, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      Hippy – many words have multiple meanings. Hoever, that does not mean that one can interchange them.

      For example – the word "know" hasmultiple meanings, including "to recognize someone", and "to have s.ex with someone". So, if I ask you, "Do you know your mother?", what am I asking?

      In science, the word theory has a specific meaning. And it is not a hunch or a guess.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • JohnR

      Not fair the teach the one and not the other? Which other? Every religion, every tribe, has it's own creation myth. Perhaps a review of all the world's mythologies could indeed be a course in itself. But it's not part of natural science. It's anthropology.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • hippypoet

      prime – if the point is made clear, why struggle?

      anthropology is human history of life and how we lived as a society...that is a science! its not the study of peoples myths thru out history!

      i am talking about ideas, that which is improvable yet pertains to us all. Imagine a cl@ss room that taught nothing but myths about creation...all myths, all ideas, all possibilities! oh the horror!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • JohnR

      But please do note, while I'm on a bit of a libertarian tear, that one of the reasons that this issue IS so politically explosive is that taxpayer money pays for what is taught in schools. THAT'S why the Christian right is so shrieky on this issue. I'm not saying I have a handy proposal for a good alternative to public schools. I'm by no means a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian. But it does help to understand how the dynamic of governmental confiscation of assets (taxes) to fund government mandated and to some extent government micro-managed programs like public school science curricula does plant the seeds of intense controversy. Not that the Christian right are willing, even eager to be total hypocrites on the issue and counter-mandate that their own creation myth be taught to the exclusion of all else. But I never see anyone on either side ever say much about the crux issue, which is that we are talking about schools that all adults must pay for and all children must attend. There is no free choice here. So everyone wants to fight over who gets to play dictator.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Here's a news flash for ya, hippy. The school year in this country is NOT long. Neither is the school day. If you think 'every' idea should be discussed, then be willing to pay the taxes required to fund more time for education.

      And when you get around to it, post the scientific definition of "theory". To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

      February 13, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • hippypoet

      tom, lol – i have no need to post the definition of theory.. we all know what it means and its definition... you should never insult the princess bride with shotty uses of lines! just terrible! I could responed to that with "STOP SAYING THAT" but i won't. lol

      as far as the school year being long – when compared to other countries sure its not long at all... we have saturday and sunday off where others don't... not the point yet again! Heres a news flash for you there tom – discussions are more then just talking to other peoples... its sharing ideas and some ideas form other ones... if we set aside one fraction of every day for the purpose of discussion on any possibly topic even the taboo ones – oh what a world our children would have access to! I have no need to pay more for school taxes, not yet anyway... they are fine they way they are, we need only look at how the money is spent – it is afterall, our money, for our children – lets do it right....not just throw money at it thinking that more money will solve anything. In my view, having less something breeds respect for it and it is used more wise. but thats an opinion.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, you realize that your 'definition' of theory is NOT applicable to science, then? Thanks for admitting it.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Ironicus

      While it might be a good idea to give kids some idea of just how many religions there are and have been throughout history, I think it would be much more efficient and effective to teach kids logic, reasoning skills including skepticism, and the difference between what is rational and what is not.
      Then, once they've gotten those life skills adding any information, like how all the different religions work and what they are, would actually become useful knowledge.
      But just throwing the data at them when they could care less or when they can't even think clearly is just a waste of time.
      Let them study that junk in college as an elective. They need living skills and useful knowledge so they have something to work with once they leave high school.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • hippypoet

      for all the intelligence you'd like to have appear as you, you instead appear as a child when in an argument with no where else to turn.

      and again, i never gave a definition of anything in any of my posts today... so i therefore can't be wrong in what your saying. You instead grasp at air. Inhale it deeply, pure 02 can get you really high!

      but since i am dealing with a child – here...

      Theory – 1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something....2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

      LOL

      February 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Hippy – if you want a class that teaches creation mythology –

      We already know that at least 30% of high school science teachers are creationists. In the humanities, I bet it's significantly higher. So we have a class now, where 1000 creation myths are going to be taught. And you expect afundamentalist high s hook teacher in Alabama to teach this class of fundamentalist students that the creation myths of Amma and Bumba are every bit as real and valid as the two different ones in Genesis?

      Really? You think we have trouble teaching evolution, what till Johnny's parents get a look at what we're going to teach him about religion!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Ironicus,

      I agree. At the high school level, a chapter or two on the major world religions (including the major, ancient, defunct ones) and a brief overview of their basic beliefs presented in Sociology class (or whatever they call it these days) is sufficient.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • hippypoet

      prime..." And you expect afundamentalist high s hook teacher in Alabama to teach this class of fundamentalist students that the creation myths of Amma and Bumba are every bit as real and valid as the two different ones in Genesis?"

      No, i expect they do there fuc.king jobs! teaching is a job like that of anyother, you do what you are told and you teach what you are told to teach as well... no personal feelings... if this is too hard then that teacher should find a new job elsewhere!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Hippy wrote, "I think we should if we are to teach any 1 of them (theories) we then should show how not biased we are and teach all possible answers."

      You then wrote, " and again, i never gave a definition of anything in any of my posts today... so i therefore can't be wrong in what your saying."

      We were discussing the teaching of the theory of evolution in science class. Claiming you were free to subst.itute your own definition of theory for the scientific theory is disingenuous at best, and is actually being intellectually dishonest.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @Bizarre and Ironicus – you both are missing my idea... i am saying for every level of school, why should we start at high school...why not first grade? You build the discussion over years giving the students years of knowledge thru out school and not just in one time frame!

      the ability of children to learn is beyond amazing and we use it to have them draw inside the lines – are you fu.cking kidding me (pun intended) !!!!!!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Brad

      "teach kids logic, reasoning skills including skepticism, and the difference between what is rational and what is not." I whole-heartedly agree, Ironicus. Of course one draw-back for our civilization would be that people would become more resistant to advertising and commercialization. That could lead to serious opposition.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • hippypoet

      prime and to any other who still wishes to argue definitions

      theory – system of ideas intended to explain something

      i said possibilities... with the word theory and i get all this muck....ahh fuc.k it all! lol

      February 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Ironicus

      Bizarre – that wasn't a bizarre response. Maybe you should use a different name?

      I forgot to add that I'd also prefer to see tons of trade schools with free tuition and massive stimulus to get everyone working, educated or not, but left it out. There are tons of different commons sense reforms we could be making in education, but without a job market worth entering, most kids will just live with their parents and slowly forget all that math, English, and science as they play videogames as a way of coping.
      I have young relatives who have no hope of ever finding a job where they can support themselves at the unskilled labor level or anything above that. Their educations haven't given them the ability to create jobs out of thin air for themselves.
      Just reforming education is not enough. But I am just wasting time here, anyway. This blog is not an influential one for many reasons, the largest of which is that it is called the "Belief Blog" and no one takes religion seriously on policy issues if they have any sort of clue. I just thought I'd stop by and type a few rants by way of saying hi to everyone.

      February 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Ironicus

      hippypoet, that would be fine, but what good do you expect it to do for each child when most of them are being indoctrinated in a religion that requires unquestioning simple-minded obedience?
      Those kids will just look at other religions as bizarre fairy tales and will be unable and unwilling to do the same for the religion they are in. You are fighting against brainwashing using a wet noodle.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @Doc Vestibule: "as Richard Dawkins pointed out, constant-rate gradualism is not present in the professional literature. The term phyletic gradualism is usually used as a straw man argument by proponent of punctuated equilibrium."
      @Chad: no.. but a valiant attempt at obfuscation anyway. 🙂
      Dawkins is desperately attempting to maintain some illusion that Darwins notion of gradualism hasn't been completely debunked. Darwin never maintained "constant-rate gradualism", nor does phyletic gradualism maintain "constant-rate gradualism" in the sense that you are trying to obscure it.. namely that mutations occur regularly.
      Phyletic gradualism maintains that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual, it does not imply "constant rate".

      Dawkins failed badly on that attempt.. The authors of PE clearly differentiate allopatric speciation from phyletic gradualism, and excoriate the scientific community for failing to acknowledge the plain truth of the fossil record.

      =============
      @Doc Vestibule: "evidence for evolution does not come exclusively from the fossil record. Vestigial features, study of ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, examining pseudogenes, study of endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl all add to the modern evolutionary synthesis. We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish.
      @Chad: another valiant attempt at obfuscation.. (dont you guys ever get tired of that?)
      a. the observation that mutation can and does occur does not mean that living forms as we observe them now have attained that form as a result of purely random mutations and natural selection. – Fact
      b. the observation that little birds can turn into big birds, and little fish can turn into big fish does not explain how fish, land animals, birds and humans came into being. – Fact

      The fact that the gaps in the fossil record correspond exactly to the creations of fish, birds, land animals and humans is obviously no coincidence 🙂
      You can draw little dotted lines all you want, but that is one inescapable fact. 🙂

      @Doc Vestibule: "If you would like to see exactly how the improbable can happen, you can use the computer simulation of life's development called Avida."

      Avida is an artificial life sof tware platform to study the evolutionary biology of self-replicating and evolving computer programs

      1. what results have they obtained that you would consider "improbable"
      2. how would this in any way be considered to be capable of modeling life's development?

      February 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Primewonk

      hippy – the point is – there is one, and only one theory to explain the diversification of life on earth. There are no other theories. There aren't even any other hypotheses.

      Again, claiming there are other "theories" is intellectually dishonest.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • hippypoet

      if i can get the wet noddle started early enough, there may be a seed of doubt in the childrens minds...they then need answers. Over time wet noddle will harden and become a thorn in there beliefs.Or perhaps no effect, but then at least i tried!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Ironicus

      Ah, hippypoet, I keep typing out different answers and keep running into the same wall: children's rights vs parents rights, including the school's "in loco parentis" responsibilities all being somewhat at odds with the others.
      The children get the shaft because children have about as many rights as a stray dog in our society. Unless you address equal rights, attempts or desire to impose an "equalized" education will not happen at all.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @prime – you said "There aren't even any other hypotheses." now thats just a moronic statment...but since your being so intellectually polite.....that was you being intellectually dishonest!

      this is what a hypothesis is – a supposition or proposed explanation to anything.
      If you truly believe that there are no other ideas as to how we humans (or just life in general) get here then you aren't looking too hard!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Chad – you seem to be asserting "facts" that exist only in the minds of creationists. Let's cut through the BULLSHlT and go right to the chase. Post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific reserch articles that falsified ToE.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • hippypoet

      yup, ironicus – that was something as a child i couldn't get over – i had no rights to really anything...not even my bank account! I try to give my daughter and son as equal a choice as i can without allowing them to harm themselves without knowing....and thats the way is should be, equal respect for ALL peolpe...not just whites, not just those above the age of whatever...but all people.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Ironicus

      hippypoet, it's really much more fun for me when I disagree with you.
      Sure you wouldn't like to say something stupid instead?
      Come on, I know you've got something stupid to say somewhere!
      Let it out! Release the demons!

      February 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love it when some knucklehead who repeatedly uses "there" incorrectly starts yammering about what schools should teach.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      <bScientific Theory,

      noun

      A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • hippypoet

      sure, no problem.... lets see here, i know i have something stupid to say here somewhere...oh, here it is – i was walking thru the park one day and i saw a man eating a friggin huge spider, fried of course...i asked "does that taste good?" he said "no, needs garlic!" thee end!

      for anyone who doesn't know, the spoken words were taken from croc. dundee 2!
      remember kids, you can eat it, but it tastes like sh!t. 🙂

      February 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      scientific theory

      noun
      a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

      February 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

      Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Ironicus

      hippypoet, that was singularly unsatisfying and inane. Good job. My lame attempt at trolling got a lame response. Oh, well.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Brad

      Fair enough – but still subject to criticism and revision or replacement.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • hippypoet

      lol, oh tom...what a crack up you are! lol

      i never said the theory was a sciencific theory, they have different definitions... and again, whats faster and easier to type is perhaps the wrong word to use but it still says, if spoken outloud, what i want it to...so get over yourself. Oh and thank you for letting me know it was a noun, where would i be without you! 🙂

      Yammering is fun, ranting is better, but the most fun is jibba jabba!

      February 13, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Evolution IS a scientific theory. Creationism is not. One can and should be taught in a science class. The other does not belong there. You can back-pedal all you want, hippy,

      February 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are most welcome for the assist with the "noun" information, dearie, but your thanks should be directed to the site from which I copied the definition.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • hippypoet

      no back-pedalling... i will have none of that! i am telling you exactly what i said/meant/impied/whatever – both are ideas, one is a sciencific theory while one is strickly an idea....just like that of evolution once...Darwin had an idea, the idea came to him while he was watching some birds and playing with his dog...but still an idea

      sorry if that aspect of theory wasn't what you wanted, its unavoidable! Just because they share something in common gives rise for anyone to compare them as equals in that field! My sentence was "I think we should if we are to teach any 1 of them (theories) we then should show how not biased we are and teach all possible answers."

      why don't you reread that sentence again... find the word possible and you win! notice how i said all POSSIBLE answers...the word theory fits that, a theory is ONE possible answer to a problem that has been tested...get over it pal!

      February 13, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • hippypoet

      tom, this was originally for brad... but it fits here too...hippypoet

      brad, i don't think we are too pragmatic but perhaps too literal in our applications of knowledge... just a thought.
      i know when i was dealing with metaphysics i loved it.

      your issue – perhaps too literal in YOUR applications of knowledge

      February 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I surely do hope the school you send your kids to is doing a better job of educating them than you are, hippy. Anyone who is a clueless about the written word, even on some board, is not capable of persuading me that you know squat about educating anyone. It's "STRICTLY". You can continue to post gibberish if you wish.

      February 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • hippypoet

      ok thank you tom... lol.

      its hard to look smart when you are not...be like tom and just call others wrong by use of low standing arguments like that of spelling and grammer corrections. Come on english teacher – correct me!

      question for you... why did you correct a spelling error when there was none? here for your confusion i shall post the sentence with the word you THOUGHT you were correcting...

      i am telling you exactly what i said/meant/impied/whatever – both are ideas, one is a sciencific theory while one is strickly an idea.

      it is taken DIRECTLY, lol, from where i posted it.....i see no issue with it, but those whom view the rest of the human race as below often see error where there is none, its a cooping style – to create an issue where none exist is the childrens version- yours is a bit of both.

      And my children are already being moved foward in the grades due to there knowledge of things above and beyond the rest! thats called proper parenting, teaching is part of it...the teachers at the school just do what they are paid to do! thats not enough, but for some , you and yours, its clearly all thats needed. 🙂

      cheers buddy boy!

      February 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Hippy – I'm sorry, but in science a hypothesis still needs to be based or rooted in science.

      "goddidit" and "poof, then another miracle occurs" are not real hypotheses.

      Plus, any god worth his or her salt, claims supernatural powers. Science only deals with the natural, because the supernatural isn't falsifiable. And if it isn't falsifiable, it has no place in science. All creation myths posit a supernatural being, thus none of these thousand myths qualify as science.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      question for you... why did you correct a spelling error when there was none? here for your confusion i shall post the sentence with the word you THOUGHT you were correcting...

      Well, maybe this will ring a bell, though I doubt it:
      " while one is strickly an idea.."

      Again, honey, it's "strictly", not "strictly", as you wrote.

      Furthermore, it's not the ONLY error in your posts by a long shot. You are pretending that creationism and evolution are equally valid. They are not.

      But go right ahead and get all incensed. It's what you do best.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Autocorrect was on and it corrected your spelling of the word, hippy. You wrote "strickly". It's "strictly", as I said. Get it now, buddy boy?

      Jeers.

      February 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • hippypoet

      tom, your a moron – i never said they are equally valid, they are eqaul in the fact that they are ideas of why are we what we are! any idea is equal to another in the sense that they are both ideas!

      @prime – no, a hypothesis is not only founded in science... it has only to do with science when a person in science has one.
      You need no evidence to think something will happen, it helps, but its not needed! A hypothesis is simply the formation of an idea of what might happen. here is the real definition...

      A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any a$sumption of its truth.

      i said this to brad, but it again fits – which i love 🙂
      we are being too literal with the applications of our knowledge. (this part is new) Imagine there is a box, now imagine outside the box. whoa! lol

      February 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hippy, it's "you're". And no, I'm not. You stated that ALL POSSIBLE ideas should be discussed; the implication is that they are equally worthy of discussion. They aren't.

      You are simply angry because your views aren't being swallowed wholesale. Your posts are so poorly written and thought out and so full of nonsense that I usually don't bother to read them. I see from this exchange, in which you cannot argue your point with anything that resembles logic or reason, that I should revert to my original policy of ignoring what you post.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Primewonk

      We're talking science class. We're talking the diversification of life on earth. I don't really care what colloquial definitions you want to use for theory and hypothesis. It's SCIENCE CLASS, not Elizabethan Lit, so we'll use the lexicon of science. If you don't like it, it really doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, you don't have standing in any of the relavent fields to set terms and definitions germain to the science of evolution.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • hippypoet

      i am sorry that the idea of discussing to different ideas on the same topic and viewing them as equals in the sense that they are both ideas for an answer to the question of how is confusing for you... i understand, and i am sad that you can't fathom this apparent super deep convo... its ok.

      and i say thank you for the ignoring in the past, it was enjoyed by both parties... and thank you again for going back to your cave...

      your, there, they're, you're, – i dont care – no amount of telling will distill any amount of care – its time to move on from correcting ones spelling to responding to what was being said, no matter how poorly.

      You again, view yourself as above or better then when infact its you who fail to see a very clear equality between opposing ideas...i shall reword it like this – for every something, there exists an opposite, every opposite is equal to every opposite in the sense they are opposites, and since every opposites opposite is an opposite of the opposite, they too are equal...in this the arguments are of the beginnings of everything, they are equal to eachother for being an argument for the same thing, however the arguments are opposing stances. One for nature and one for god. It is in the argument that they are not equal. One is supported by evidence while the latter (god) is merely an idea and will never be raised beyond that, factually speaking.

      now shoo, and nay return, your pesence here is unwanted anyway for you have only spelling and grammer corrections to add! Substance is beyond your reach!

      February 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @Primewonk, the above post wa for tom...as for you... well, i'm sorry you missed the word school and decided to place science cl@ss in its place.. i'm sure YOU were discussing science cl@ss, no one else was... we were discussing schooling of children...every cl@ss, every level of school... science is but one aspect of what i was talking about. It is perhaps the reason why you argued the way you did for the scienific definitions of things... no worries, and sry for the misunderstanding....

      February 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's hilarious to watch you attempt to impersonate an intelligent adult, hippy. Thanks for posting the kind of gibberish that proves my contention.

      February 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Everyone knows the earth rides on the back of a giant turtle who keeps it from running into the stars!"

      (From "The King and I")

      Shall we include this in our school 'discussions', too?

      February 13, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Primewonk et al. –
      Poking Chad with a stick to see what he'll spew is entertaining – lord knows I've engaged in the activity for sport many, many times; however, he really is a one-string-banjo...if it wasn't for Wikipedia, he'd be mute. Seriously, at this point in the game responding to his silliness really serves no purpose other than keeping him in the game by fueling his ego. Ignore him and eventually he'll go away, as will the [non]intelligent design nonsense he foists.

      February 17, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  15. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    February 13, 2012 at 6:47 am |
    • Mirosal

      yeah... you wish.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:51 am |
    • Prayer changes things

      Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      February 13, 2012 at 6:55 am |
    • Mirosal

      it's a lot healthier than living in fear of some sky-fairy who will punish you if you don't so what IT wants. That's coercion. Much like living under the thumb of a Mafia don. Don't do what he wants, you'll pay too much in interest.

      February 13, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • Concerned Lutheran

      Let's none of us live in fear of punishment. What fears get you up in the morning to post here, Mirosal?

      February 13, 2012 at 7:01 am |
    • Mirosal

      No fears at all. I work nights. That is why I am up and awake.

      February 13, 2012 at 7:09 am |
    • AGuest9

      Lies are immoral.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Nope

      *The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs."""""`~~~~

      February 13, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • nope

      nope

      February 13, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Nope

      "nope

      nope"

      Keep showing your desperation.

      February 13, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • just sayin

      How desperate is nope?

      February 13, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How clueless is just lyin', not to mention how dishonest it is.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Yup

      "just sayin

      How desperate is nope?"

      Even more desperation from the xtians. LMAO!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • nope

      nope
      no such thing as xtians

      February 13, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Yup

      "nope

      nope
      no such thing as xtians"

      More stupidity and desperation from the xtian! LMAO!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • What's Cookin'

      Puree for whirled peas!

      February 13, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
  16. 1 John

    5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
    8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

    February 13, 2012 at 6:10 am |
    • jimtanker

      I can quote nonsensical bible quotes too.

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      February 13, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Flinders, the butler

      God is light. God travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.

      February 13, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • Rev. Parson

      It is good to read the word of God in the morning.Thank you for posting.

      February 13, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • JohnR

      You'd think got could at least manage 300 million meters per second!

      February 13, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Ironicus

      Flinders, my good man, would you please quit saying silly things? A butler isn't supposed to sound like an idiot.

      February 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.