How Fundamentalist Collectivism Empowers Hardliners Against the Wishes of Most Americans

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago to Politics
209 comments | Share | Flag

From the article:
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”

Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.

A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Defending a border the length of the borders of the United States borders is simpler than defending borders along the perimeter of each state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The modern theory of evolution actually differs from Darwin's original theory in several respects. For example, Darwin thought humans evolved from apes, whereas modern scientists believe that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. There are many other differences as well, so refuting Darwin's theories does not equate to refuting evolution entirely.

    Also, plenty of intermediate stages of animal development have been found. I don't know why you think they haven't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It depends. Sometimes a splinter group claims to still be a part of the parent religion, and sometimes not. The more time that passes, the further a particular group tends to drift from its point of origin.

    And yes, that's exactly what I mean.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's good to have ideas. I met a person who thoughtit was bad to think about certain things. That scared me.

    I'm going to bed good night!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm just talking about scale, it obviously won't get rid of it. But the native American tribes were small, and it was easy to get everyone on board, each tribe had its own culture with little variation. I haven't found nor looked for a chart depicting wars that were paid with through taxes and wars that weren't, but all the way back to Alexander the Great and Egypt I'm sure it would raise some questions at least. There's a difference between the Wyoming region declaring war on Colorado, and a nation of millions declaring war against another million, with no one able to withdraw their financial support.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One point to consider, is who benefits the most from government actions like defending private property? The poor or the rich? If there were no more police, would the riots rush to the ghetto for their raid? No, they would target people who have things to lose.

    The affluent would pay for the bulk, and would get a certificate stating how much they donated. A great way for McDonalds to say it's more patriotic than burger King. Businesses advertise all the time about the charities they donate to. They would no doubt flaunt that they contribute to a government that protects everyone.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's an idea I entertained, yes, though I can't commit myself to say for sure whether or not it would work well. It was just an idea.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You've reached an interesting point. For a lot of what the government does, it does because no one else does it.

    The word "legitimate" is vague, but I assume he bases it off of protecting individual rights, and when your rights are infringed upon, you pay a fee to right it. He could also mean things like drivers liscences and National Parks and such.

    I am curious to see what he will say though, I'm merely speculating.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Native American tribes had no taxes, and yet they still fought and killed each other all the time prior to European colonists coming to North America. This idea that an absence of taxation will somehow lead to less killing seems to me to be an unfounded claim.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're being extremely vague. HOW would government expenses be funded by the users? Also, who qualifies as a user?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you could have a voluntary tax system. The government puts out a budget for what it needs and asks for donations. If the government only did what you call legitimate, it wouldn't need that much anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Government's legitimate activities can be funded by the user's, by fee's for legitimate services, etc. The key word here is 'legitimate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That was a very depressing article for me. One part that sticks out was the line about Hamilton wondering how he was going to collect enough money for war. As if the taxation and the notion of a government didn't exist, there wouldn't be war. It even stated that's why Egypt and medieval States had taxes, for war. Maybe if people weren't taxed, there would be less war. Maybe no one would want to pay for it.

    Thanks for that though I did need some history on it and that was a good start. It gave a nice glimpse of the good intentions behind income tax. If the poor were being taxed more than the affluent it's easy to see why they would search for a more fair method. I just wish they would have gone down the other road: no one gets taxed instead of everyone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't mean that states would levy taxes, I meant that Congress would levy taxes within each state according to that state's population levels. Here's a brief history of Income Tax:

    http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/q...

    And thanks for the offer. I'll have to check that site out. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by EconomicFreedom 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yet each splinter still claims to be part of the same religion. It would be different if each claimed to start a new religion, but that didn't occur.

    In any case, I don't understand what you mean by a "flexible leadership". Do you mean that the leadership in a particular religion ought to keep an open mind about new knowledge and new facts when they come to light? Is that what you mean by "flexible" leadership?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a great start. I like that a lot, though at the end there it says the states can levy taxes? I dislike that.

    But I told you I have a lot of issues lol. Currently we have a war on terror and a war on drugs and who knows how many other wars we are involved in. It should say without an approved declaration of war.

    But beyond that, I don't care what the paper says. I wouldn't agree to someone approaching me on the street with a pen and that contract. Nor an army telling me to agree to it. Some guy with an army approaches me and tells me he's only going to take my money if he decides to go to war with someone. Sorry no dice.

    Have you ever seen the website http://www.theobjectivestandard.com ? I think you would like it, they are extremely rational in their blog posts and articles. The problem is you have to subscribe to get some of the full articles. Send me a private message of you're interested in reading some of them though and I can help you with that.

    I only bring them up because they actually have a very sound system for a government with out forced taxation, although I would love a second opinion on it.

    Here's the article http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issu...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, taxation is a necessary part of any government. The nature of taxation in the U.S. changed dramatically in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, but taxes, in one form or another, have always been a part of our nation.

    The text of the 16th Amendment reads as follows:
    "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    If the 16th Amendment were changed to what I have written below, would that address your concerns?

    Alternate hypothetical amendment:
    "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, only during times of war. During times of peace, there shall be no taxation on incomes, from whatever source derived, though there may be taxation on imports and production. In either war or peace, taxation must have apportionment among the several States, with regard to census and enumeration."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Respectfully, that is totally incorrect in the fact that Darwinian Evolution is missing any evidence that it ever happened. All of the transition animals are missing from the fossil record. Not a single one has ever been found although they must have outnumbered the functional animals by trillions to one.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo