ADF: Defender of religious liberty, human life and tradition

[pizza]

I'm sure Ralph will tell us why the ADF is both unnecessary and un-American. And one can safely bet that any ensuing discussion will quickly devolve into the usual religious vs. atheist mode with rancorous ad hominem contributions offered by both sides.


'Anti-ACLU' Fights for Religion in Public Life

Sunday, August 14, 2005

LOS ANGELES — For years, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have fought to remove any trace of religion from government and public life, and for years they've won.

Now the ACLU is facing a challenge from groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund, one of several Christian law firms formed in the 1990s.

From its base in Phoenix, the ADF says its goal is to defend religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family against any person or group who attacks those principles.

"The ACLU has through the years filed a series of lawsuits that diminish the rights of Americans to understand their history, to exhibit in public, to exercise their faith in many ways," said ADF president and CEO Alan E. Sears.

In one of its better-known cases, the ADF sued the city and county of San Francisco and successfully argued before the California state Supreme Court that marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples should be declared null and void because the mayor and county clerk did not have the authority to issue them.

Now it's working on what it calls its "Christmas project," an effort to defend school districts around the nation against lawsuits to ban Christmas trees and other religious displays during the holidays.

Former ACLU board member Susan Estrich, a FOX News contributor, said groups such as the ADF are unnecessary because they represent a majority group, which already has all the influence it needs.

"So long as Christians are voting and electing the majority, and the majority of our leaders are Christian and the majority of our judges are Christian, I'm not sure who the Christians are ultimately complaining about," Estrich said.

Of course, it only takes one person to file a lawsuit. In San Diego, a single atheist has kept the city in court for over a decade trying to get a cross removed from a war memorial. The ADF and their allies say that's why they exist.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly ... 44,00.html

[Ralph]

Pizza,

What an incredibly stupid comment which shows you either don't carefully read threads on subjects you care about or you can't remember much.

I have very frequently opined on the professionalism and worth of conservative legal think tanks and firms that regularly oppose the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. While the firm you reported is new to me I have by name often mentioned on relevant threads the RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE which litigates often on behalf of ideologically conservative Church and State positions and I've been up against them. Incidentally, I have never been in litigation against a lawyer representing that viewpoint where the relationship hasn't been not only courteous but amicable.

Just so you get a clear response once and for all about MY position, all who seek to make or change law through litigation deserve to be fairly heard and to be well represented. It doesn't matter to me where on the political/social/religious spectrum they may be.

[jbuck919]

Why wait for Ralph? While such groups claim to be defending values and cherished traditions, they are always, without exception that I am aware of, really attacking and trying to prohibit behaviors that are of no negative political consequence that happen to offend them personally in a context where they receive group stroking (i.e., from their religious denomination) for their narrow-minded stance. That is called bigotry.

And now I have a plane to catch.

[Ralph]

Why wait for Ralph? While such groups claim to be defending values and cherished traditions, they are always, without exception that I am aware of, really attacking and trying to prohibit behaviors that are of no negative political consequence that happen to offend them personally in a context where they receive group stroking (i.e., from their religious denomination) for their narrow-minded stance. That is called bigotry.

And now I have a plane to catch.

*****

Whatever view one may have of a litigant's cause or the actual merits of the case the lawyer's role is to ethically and zealously represent that entity. If anything is un-American it's Pizza's suggestion that a law firm dedicated to such representation would be disdained by those defending contrary values.. Very similar to some of the attacks being levied right now at Judge Roberts.

[Ted]

an effort to defend school districts around the nation against lawsuits to ban Christmas trees and other religious displays during the holidays.

Yep…That’s some important work they got going there

[Ralph]

an effort to defend school districts around the nation against lawsuits to ban Christmas trees and other religious displays during the holidays.

Yep…That’s some important work they got going there

*****

I think so. I hope they lose many of these actions but I don't marginalize them - personally or professionally - for using the law to fight for what they eprceive as their constitutional rights.

[Darryl]

Oh c'mon guys. The only stupid remark I see so far is Susan Estrich's.

[pizza]

an effort to defend school districts around the nation against lawsuits to ban Christmas trees and other religious displays during the holidays.

Yep…That’s some important work they got going there

Ain't it funny how many of those who belittle the importance of such work rarely take a similar position where lawsuits to prevent the public display of the Ten Commandments or other vestiges of our religious history are filed.

[pizza]

If anything is un-American it's Pizza's suggestion that a law firm dedicated to such representation would be disdained by those defending contrary values.

The ACLU has called some of their mainstream clients "Threats to Civil Liberties" and has said with respect to the Religious Right that their objectives are "To Rule and to Reign", the choice of words obviously conjuring up the attempt to establish a theocracy in place of our democratic form of government. I doubt that many will differentiate between the organizations thus maligned and their legal representatives who supposedly share such values.

[Barry]

I'll just echo what Ralph said. A group like the ADF plays a role in our constitutional system, just as those on the other side do.

I'll just continue to root for those on the other side to win these cases since I prefer to see government property free of religious symbols. Have I mentioned how much I admire the guy who brought the suit to have the word God removed from the Pledge by the way?

[Ralph]

If anything is un-American it's Pizza's suggestion that a law firm dedicated to such representation would be disdained by those defending contrary values.

The ACLU has called some of their mainstream clients "Threats to Civil Liberties" and has said with respect to the Religious Right that their objectives are "To Rule and to Reign", the choice of words obviously conjuring up the attempt to establish a theocracy in place of our democratic form of government. I doubt that many will differentiate between the organizations thus maligned and their legal representatives who supposedly share such values.

*****

Pizza,

I won't disagree with you that "many" can't distinguish between cause and counsel. Is that any reason for a member of the Bar with an ethical and professional duty to uphold values central to our system to perpetuate such distortion?

[pizza]

If anything is un-American it's Pizza's suggestion that a law firm dedicated to such representation would be disdained by those defending contrary values.

The ACLU has called some of their mainstream clients "Threats to Civil Liberties" and has said with respect to the Religious Right that their objectives are "To Rule and to Reign", the choice of words obviously conjuring up the attempt to establish a theocracy in place of our democratic form of government. I doubt that many will differentiate between the organizations thus maligned and their legal representatives who supposedly share such values.

*****

Pizza,

I won't disagree with you that "many" can't distinguish between cause and counsel. Is that any reason for a member of the Bar with an ethical and professional duty to uphold values central to our system to perpetuate such distortion?

Since pointing out the inability to make the distinction is an accurate assessment rather than a distortion, there's nothing un-professional or un-American about suggesting that a law firm dedicated to representing certain values can be the object of disdain by those defending contrary values.

[Ralph]

If anything is un-American it's Pizza's suggestion that a law firm dedicated to such representation would be disdained by those defending contrary values.

The ACLU has called some of their mainstream clients "Threats to Civil Liberties" and has said with respect to the Religious Right that their objectives are "To Rule and to Reign", the choice of words obviously conjuring up the attempt to establish a theocracy in place of our democratic form of government. I doubt that many will differentiate between the organizations thus maligned and their legal representatives who supposedly share such values.

*****

Pizza,

I won't disagree with you that "many" can't distinguish between cause and counsel. Is that any reason for a member of the Bar with an ethical and professional duty to uphold values central to our system to perpetuate such distortion?

Since pointing out the inability to make the distinction is an accurate assessment rather than a distortion, there's nothing un-professional or un-American about suggesting that a law firm dedicated to representing certain values can be the object of disdain by those defending contrary values.

*****

Fine. I'm getting used to your very idiosyncratic views about our profession which spice discussions here.

[Ted]

From ADF’s website:

ADF is Christ-Centered
We rely solely upon God’s redemptive grace for our existence, our vision, and our sustenance, trusting in His sovereignty as we seek to convey hope to all we serve”
And
“The Alliance Defense Fund regularly combats the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other like-minded organizations in their efforts to limit public acknowledgement of God. We are convinced that, by God's continued grace, America can be truly free again - with no restraints on the Gospel's proclamation; no unconstitutional restrictions on your right to speak, pray and worship; God's design for the family celebrated, not redefined or punished, by the legal system; and no fear that freedom's finest hours are past

Pizza
The ADF may be right up your ally, but speaking as an American, I think I’d rather have the ACLU on my side

[pizza]

From ADF’s website:

ADF is Christ-Centered
We rely solely upon God’s redemptive grace for our existence, our vision, and our sustenance, trusting in His sovereignty as we seek to convey hope to all we serve”
And
“The Alliance Defense Fund regularly combats the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other like-minded organizations in their efforts to limit public acknowledgement of God. We are convinced that, by God's continued grace, America can be truly free again - with no restraints on the Gospel's proclamation; no unconstitutional restrictions on your right to speak, pray and worship; God's design for the family celebrated, not redefined or punished, by the legal system; and no fear that freedom's finest hours are past

Pizza
The ADF may be right up your ally, but speaking as an American, I think I’d rather have the ACLU on my side

I never heard of the ADF before I read the posted article, but it appears to be a much needed antidote to the insensitive, blind, headstrong and tortuous agenda of the ACLU. In that sense, it is right up my alley and I welcome them and any other organization that will work to defeat the ACLU's agenda. Speaking as an American, I'd take my chances pro se rather than be represented by any organization that had voluntarily represented and advanced the position of neo-Nazis, regardless of the issue in dispute.

[Werner]

"Insensitive, blind, headstrong, and tortuous" are adjectives that can be applied not only to one side of this argument, Pizza. You can have a nice and literate argument with Ralph here, and I have no place in the legalism of the discusion, but I do get concerned when the discussion descends - as it always and invariably seems to - to this sort of pejorative level.

If I disagree with the viewpoint of the ADF - to which you have exposed me, too, for the first time - I do recognize their right, not to predominate the discussion, but to be heard. As do the others' similar rights.

I am just as much opposed to the "ultra-orthodox" - if you'll pardon my expression - position of those atheists of whom you complain, and who are as objectionable in plying their antireligious viewpoints as anyone else.

Remember Rodney King - "Can't we all get along?" Do we have to look to him of all people for a bit of wisdom?

I'd settle for the ACLU or the atheists giving up their insistence on eliminating the word "God" from the public forum if we can agree that we are all subject to some superior force, which each denomination has its own way of codifying.

The various religious orthodoxies - if you'll let me use the term generically here - exist and will not be displaced. But to find a modus vivendi among them does seem to require a balance of a secular nature.

[Barry]

I'd settle for the ACLU or the atheists giving up their insistence on eliminating the word "God" from the public forum if we can agree that we are all subject to some superior force, which each denomination has its own way of codifying.

We're never all going to agree on anything, much less whether we are all subject to some superior force. I'm certainly not stipulating that.

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

[Werner]

Well, Bary, if we ask the "other" guys for a little compromise, will a move by us hurt anything? We'll never "agree" on everything - what's needed is a level of mutual accommodation.

I don't knw what use a musical term has in this connection - but "grace notes" comes to mind.

[Barry]

Werner,
I believe in compromise on many issues. I'm fairly moderate and pragmatic. But these types of cultural/societal/church-state issues touch something in me in a way that doesn't lend to a desire for compromise.

[Ted]

Pizza Wrote:

I'd take my chances pro se rather than be represented by any organization that had voluntarily represented and advanced the position of neo-Nazis, regardless of the issue in dispute.

Hogwash and you know it.
It’s rather puerile of you to paint the ACLU with that brush.
Yes, they may go too far at times, but they are not what you insinuate.

I have no problem with the Public use of God though I have huge problems with the public abuse inflicted by religious maniacs who demand to have it or their equally maniacal counterparts who demand it be rejected.

[pizza]

Pizza Wrote:

I'd take my chances pro se rather than be represented by any organization that had voluntarily represented and advanced the position of neo-Nazis, regardless of the issue in dispute.

Hogwash and you know it.
It’s rather puerile of you to paint the ACLU with that brush.
Yes, they may go too far at times, but they are not what you insinuate.

I have no problem with the Public use of God though I have huge problems with the public abuse inflicted by religious maniacs who demand to have it or their equally maniacal counterparts who demand it be rejected.

I wouldn't have called the ACLU "hogwash" but you may have a point there. The ACLU painted themselves with their own brush and have only themselves to blame for it. Aside from the fact that democracy is not a suicide pact among its advocates and we are not OBLIGED to support those who would destroy us if they had the ability to do so, it is hard to imagine a more despicable decision than to offer one's prestige and resources to such scum.

It appears that your huge problem is with anyone, regardless of his politics, who takes a strong public stand in favor or against anything that is meaningless to you. In your view they're "maniacs" because they strongly believe in something that is of no importance to you and are willing to do something about it instead of just quietly griping.

[pizza]

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

Are believers guests in this country, or is "government property" theirs too? What gives non-believers the right to dictate what can and can't be displayed on government property?

You know very well that "separation of church and state" means that government has no right to establish a state religion. That's all it means. All the rest is dross.

[Ted]

In your view they're "maniacs" because they strongly believe in something that is of no importance to you and are willing to do something about it instead of just quietly griping.

There you again Pizza.
So you think because I am against those of religious faith imposing (or attempting to impose) their beliefs on all citizens (like overturning RVW or a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage) means that I am anti God.
That’s small minded of you
I am all for GOD
Just not for the thick and ordinary who use GOD as a means to suppress our unalienable right to pursue happiness.
Then again what can I expect from one who thinks the world was created in 6 days some 6500 years ago.

[pizza]

In your view they're "maniacs" because they strongly believe in something that is of no importance to you and are willing to do something about it instead of just quietly griping.

There you again Pizza.
So you think because I am against those of religious faith imposing (or attempting to impose) their beliefs on all citizens (like overturning RVW or a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage) means that I am anti God.
That’s small minded of you
I am all for GOD
Just not for the thick and ordinary who use GOD as a means to suppress our unalienable right to pursue happiness.
Then again what can I expect from one who thinks the world was created in 6 days some 6500 years ago.

What nonsense, Ted. Did you miss the recent debate in this forum where your 6 day/6500 year ploy was raised again for the umpteenth time, or did you mentally suppress it? Once again, read Dr. Gerry Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang if you want to know the broad range of ideas supporting Orthodox belief in Creation. Even on these boards we're way beyond your cheap shot.

From where did you conjure up this paranoid "impose" crap? Do you really think anyone wants to impose his beliefs on anyone else, or even could if he wanted to? Of course you don't.

The God you prefer is one who generally stays out of your affairs and drops by once in a while for a cup of coffee. God forbid, or is it forbid God to require anything that may intefere with "our" happiness. The "we" of "our" of course is "me", meaning Ted. You want a God that always agrees with you, but you've got it backwards. That ain't how it works.

[Ralph]

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

Are believers guests in this country, or is "government property" theirs too? What gives non-believers the right to dictate what can and can't be displayed on government property?

You know very well that "separation of church and state" means that government has no right to establish a state religion. That's all it means. All the rest is dross.

*****

So scores of Supreme Court decisions (which you don't like) are just "dross." Pizza, I wish I could fly you in as a guest for my Church and State seminar.

[pizza]

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

Are believers guests in this country, or is "government property" theirs too? What gives non-believers the right to dictate what can and can't be displayed on government property?

You know very well that "separation of church and state" means that government has no right to establish a state religion. That's all it means. All the rest is dross.

*****

So scores of Supreme Court decisions (which you don't like) are just "dross." Pizza, I wish I could fly you in as a guest for my Church and State seminar.

If I did appear, the first thing I would do is lecture you on refraining from distorting what I said.

[Ralph]

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

Are believers guests in this country, or is "government property" theirs too? What gives non-believers the right to dictate what can and can't be displayed on government property?

You know very well that "separation of church and state" means that government has no right to establish a state religion. That's all it means. All the rest is dross.

*****

So scores of Supreme Court decisions (which you don't like) are just "dross." Pizza, I wish I could fly you in as a guest for my Church and State seminar.

If I did appear, the first thing I would do is lecture you on refraining from distorting what I said.

*****

Okay, so how's about you take a vaction in Gotham and meet my seminar students. I throw in a concert and dinner at a glatt kosher ribs joint on West 72d.

[pizza]

Okay, so how's about you take a vaction in Gotham and meet my seminar students. I throw in a concert and dinner at a glatt kosher ribs joint on West 72d.

Can't take a vacation now but possibly after the Holidays. I may be in Baltimore to visit some of my family around that time so it's a possibility.

[Ralph]

Okay, so how's about you take a vaction in Gotham and meet my seminar students. I throw in a concert and dinner at a glatt kosher ribs joint on West 72d.

Can't take a vacation now but possibly after the Holidays. I may be in Baltimore to visit some of my family around that time so it's a possibility.

*****

It might be difficult to coordinate coming to class since my seminar only meets once a week at night but I'm definitely looking forward to meeting you (at last). E-mail me when you have a sense of travel plans.

[Barry]

And in light of the fact that believers are legally entitled to pray and discuss their religion at home, in church/synagogue/etc. and on virtually any public street and sidewalk, as well as being permitted to have religious displays on their own property (i.e. their self-claimed persecution is greatly exagerrated in my view), I don't support any compromise when it comes to such displays and prayers on government property.

Are believers guests in this country, or is "government property" theirs too? What gives non-believers the right to dictate what can and can't be displayed on government property?

You know very well that "separation of church and state" means that government has no right to establish a state religion. That's all it means. All the rest is dross.

You want to know how I really feel? What I really think is that while I have no idea whether there is or isn't a force (God) out there, the notion of the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam that spoke to Abraham and Moses, sent his son to die for our sins, and communicated directly with Muhammed is a figmeant of our imagination. I think much of the human race is under mass hysteria/delusion, and I don't want my government perpetuating that.

I was at a friend's place over the weekend. His wife has their kids' rooms filled with Jesus stuff. They aren't even old enough to understand religion, yet they'll be completely indoctrinated in it by the time they are. It's bad enough that they get this at home. I don't want them getting it at school too.

If it were up to me, there would be no God in the pledge, no God on money, no prayers before government sessions, etc., etc., etc. But it's not up to me, so I take what I can get and hope my side wins as many battles as possible in court.

And even if my side wins all those battles, believers will still be able to pray and discuss their beliefs and religion almost anywhere they please; home, church-synagogue-mosque, any street and sidewalk, parks, even while standing in the hall in government buildings (i.e. in my view, they'd still have nothing legitimate to complain about).

Glad I got that off my chest .

[Darryl]

I wouldn't want to live any other place, in any other time (with the possible exception of Rome under the Antonines), "mass hysteria" and all. I find tremendous tranquility of soul in orientation to higher authority (chaos to order, just as in the oft-maligned restoration account in Genesis).

[Ted]

The God you prefer is one who generally stays out of your affairs and drops by once in a while for a cup of coffee.

Religion Pizza is for people who don’t want to go to hell.
God is for people who have already been there
As for Dr. Gerry Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang. What a Hoot!
First of all, the Big Bang as a theory hoisted by the mainstream scientific community is so full of holes and conjecture that Genesis seems almost plausible…but not quite.
Therefore Schroeder's futile attempt to reconcile the two is poppycock on a galactic scale.
I read books by scientists who may be as religious as you but don’t let their faith get in the way of their intellect
You seem to be incapable of drawing that distinction
That’s Okay---It’s conditioning
You were brought up to believe that brushing your teeth on Yom Kippur is a sin
I was brought up to believe that we can atone for our sins without getting cavities or having bad breath

[Darryl]

The God you prefer is one who generally stays out of your affairs and drops by once in a while for a cup of coffee.

Religion Pizza is for people who don’t want to go to hell.
God is for people who have already been there
As for Dr. Gerry Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang. What a Hoot!
First of all, the Big Bang as a theory hoisted by the mainstream scientific community is so full of holes and conjecture that Genesis seems almost plausible…but not quite.
Therefore Schroeder's futile attempt to reconcile the two is poppycock on a galactic scale.
I read books by scientists who may be as religious as you but don’t let their faith get in the way of their intellect
You seem to be incapable of drawing that distinction
That’s Okay---It’s conditioning
You were brought up to believe that brushing your teeth on Yom Kippur is a sin
I was brought up to believe that we can atone for our sins without getting cavities or having bad breath

Is this a poem or song? Or were the carriage returns incidental?

[Barry]

I wouldn't want to live any other place, in any other time (with the possible exception of Rome under the Antonines), "mass hysteria" and all. I find tremendous tranquility of soul in orientation to higher authority (chaos to order, just as in the oft-maligned restoration account in Genesis).

I don't deny that there are societal/cultural advantages to having a bunch of people of faith (That's a separate issue from whether their faith is based in reality or imagination/indoctrination.). The people of the great ancient societies, all the way back to Egypt and maybe beyond, were full of faith in their gods. Some scientists think a portion of our brain is programmed to "believe." Some would call that evidence of God. I call it evidence of the evolution of a handy survival mechanism.

[Darryl]

I don't deny that there are societal/cultural advantages to having a bunch of people of faith (That's a separate issue from whether their faith is based in reality or imagination/indoctrination.). The people of the great ancient societies, all the way back to Egypt and maybe beyond, were full of faith in their gods. Some scientists think a portion of our brain is programmed to "believe." Some would call that evidence of God. I call it evidence of the evolution of a handy survival mechanism.

It didn't come naturally Barry, trust me

Reality and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive (depending on how you meant to use the slash with "imagination"). Indoctrination is a means of teaching categorically, whatever the field (usually associated with military thought).

[Barry]

Reality and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily. Have to take it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, I happen to think they are, while acknowledging that you and others disagree.

[Darryl]

Barry,

That's a pretty daunting line-up of posters out there now -- Teresa, Ralph, you, and Heck (quick over to the music threads)

[Barry]

Barry,

That's a pretty daunting line-up of posters out there now -- Teresa, Ralph, you, and Heck (quick over to the music threads)

Kind of a message board Murderer's Row?

[Darryl]

I really, really want to start another Mahler thread, but I think you guys will kill me. I just got the entire Gielen set for $107 (also the Slatkin Elgar set, I remember his symphonies were great).

[Barry]

I really, really want to start another Mahler thread, but I think you guys will kill me. I just got the entire Gielen set for $107.

Go ahead! We can never have too many Mahler threads. We may disagree on that too though . I prefer the heart-on-the-sleave Lenny Bernstein approach.

[Darryl]

Okay, but I need ta listen first. And btw, I have and love several of Lenny's. I was assured Gielen would be an outstanding complement.

[Ralph]

Okay, but I need ta listen first. And btw, I have and love several of Lenny's. I was assured Gielen would be an outstanding complement.

*****

Especially his Ninth.

[pizza]

The God you prefer is one who generally stays out of your affairs and drops by once in a while for a cup of coffee.

Religion Pizza is for people who don’t want to go to hell.
God is for people who have already been there
As for Dr. Gerry Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang. What a Hoot!
First of all, the Big Bang as a theory hoisted by the mainstream scientific community is so full of holes and conjecture that Genesis seems almost plausible…but not quite.
Therefore Schroeder's futile attempt to reconcile the two is poppycock on a galactic scale.
I read books by scientists who may be as religious as you but don’t let their faith get in the way of their intellect
You seem to be incapable of drawing that distinction
That’s Okay---It’s conditioning
You were brought up to believe that brushing your teeth on Yom Kippur is a sin
I was brought up to believe that we can atone for our sins without getting cavities or having bad breath

Since I've read Schroeder and heard him lecture and debate, and have read a substantial number of articles about his theories published by his colleagues, both pro and con, it's obvious to me that you haven't the slightest idea what he thinks. Frankly I'm not interested in how you were brought up -- that's your problem -- and the matter of your dental hygiene is even less appealing. Apparently you have neither the ability nor the interest in discussing issues on their merits.

[jbuck919]

I wouldn't want to live any other place, in any other time (with the possible exception of Rome under the Antonines), "mass hysteria" and all. I find tremendous tranquility of soul in orientation to higher authority (chaos to order, just as in the oft-maligned restoration account in Genesis).

I might want to boost myself by what I hope is not more than a few decades to when the US has abolished the death penalty, has meaningful gun control, de facto health care as a right, etc. It would be swell not to have to find points of apology for one's own (beyond the dreams of men and of angels great) country. I shall not live to see the day when would-be arbiters of our life, who have no standing other than that they derive comfort from their devices and desires and happen to live in a political context where they are not sufficiently marginalized, stand over my death bed in my nightmares and tell me that thus-and-such an obvious floutation of enlightened humanity is God's will.

I am by nature likely to find myself in the intersteces of theism, if by that one features a glorious whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. But to flat-out interpret an absence as evidence of a presence, no, I am not willing to go there, though I respect as my peers and sometimes my superiors those who do.

[Barry]

I'm afraid "hysteria" was a poor choice of words on my part. What I was thinking is more like a state of mass-delusion rather than hysteria.

[Werner]

John: with regard to the last paragraph of your latest post, I suppose we both suppose that some of those whom you cite as disagreeing with you are your peers and your superiors - and some, no way of telling who, are not?

[jbuck919]

John: with regard to the last paragraph of your latest post, I suppose we both suppose that some of those whom you cite as disagreeing with you are your peers and your superiors - and some, no way of telling who, are not?

The thought struck me:

Tell me, who can trust our nature?
Human, weak, and insecure.
Which, of all the airy castles,
Can the hurricane endure?


From a hymn text by the (in his time famous) hymnist Joachim Neander. Did you know that the lowland near Duesseldorf, to the west of here, is named for him rather than the other way around? Thus we have the term Neandert[h]al (valley of the fictive Neander River), and the key figure in our scientific understanding of the evolution of our species was in fact a pietist writer of hymns glorifying exactly the counter to what his name now proposes.

[Teresa B]

Barry,

That's a pretty daunting line-up of posters out there now -- Teresa, Ralph, you, and Heck (quick over to the music threads)

Kind of a message board Murderer's Row?

Hey, thanks!

Teresa