Have Faith

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand why rational intelligent people cannot agree to teach science in science class and religion in theology class. I have no issues with both being in the school but why does one have to "win" over the other?

Evolution is a theory but it is based on scientific discovery and the testing of hypothesis's over the past 150 years. Not much in science is based on fact but almost always on theory. We could not see microbes or viruses but we came up with vaccines. We cannot see atoms but we have whole branches of science based off atomic theory with not but argument from people who appose it. Does anyone really oppose that atoms exist?

Religion is also a theory based on the writings of many scholars through thousands of years. It is based on the writings of those who were there and the interpretations of those who were there and by those who have alleged to have spoken to god (little g on purpose). It is, of course, also based on faith. The faith that 10,000 years of human existence and thought cannot be all wrong. Faith that there must be more to existence than death.

Science and religion both evolve, if you will, and adapt to meet the needs of the people that they serve. Neither is right or wrong at any given point in time and both are right and wrong at any given point in time. I would like to explore the possibility that both theories can co-exist in todays world. I would like anyone who reads this to do two things:

1. Give examples of religious individuals who believe in evolution and those who believe in evolution that also believe in religion. In my personal experiences, I have never met a scientist who did not believe in god although I have met quite a few individuals who believe in god and strongly disagree with evolution.

2.Give reasons why theology and science should not be taught in in separate but equal classes in our public schools.

Do we really have to have a renaissance age again to show that both can coexist? i again point to a previous post for religious breakdown of the world.

• Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%)
  
• Muslims 20.12%
  
• Hindus 13.34%
  
• Buddhists 5.89%
  
• Sikhs 0.39%
  
• Jews 0.23%
  
• other religions 12.61%
  
• non-religious 12.03%
  
• atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
  

Fuck Congeniality

What does it mean that we "can disagree without being disagreeable". I think that quote can be attributed to Barak Obama. Its a bunch of hooey. In a world where the U.S can drop 84,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in 42 days, in 1991, (more than all the bombs dropped on Europe by the allies in WWII) and follow that with sanctions that killed an estimated 1.5 million additional people including 500,000 children, and then top it off with our ability to somehow say that the Iraqi people deserved it because of their dickhead dictator, I think its time to start to disagree and be disagreeable about it. That does not even consider the current fiasco we are embroiled in, the second Iraq war. Estimates of this quagmire's dollar costs are as high as 2.1 trillion dollars check this out. That is in addition to the countless lives torn apart here and abroad. These are things worth being disagreeable about. Who doesn't want us to be disagreeable anyway? Who has a stake in us all being sheep plugged in to our cable T.V and latest video games? Who has a stake in us eating food so full of crap that we can't even pronounce the ingredients much less decipher what they are? Who wants our kids to learn only things that are on tests that they design and not any critical learning skills? Who wants to watch our world melt away in front of our very eyes? Who doesn't give a rats ass what kind of a world our children are left with? Its people like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, All millionaires. All part of the ruling class. All thinking of their own short term gains instead of long term prosperity for all. All part of the problem. Its time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Who Are We Fighting?

It looks as though our president is going to send more troops to be put between a rock and a hard place. One thing everyone could agree on, in order to have a war there should be a clear enemy. If not, you end up with something that looks like Iraq. Who are we fighting?
Are we fighting the sunnis ? They are the dominant religious group in the whole middle east. They are also the religion behind the likes of al Qaeda. One of our biggest allies in the middle east is Saudi Arabia. They are sunni dominated. It was they who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. We Americans give support and weaponry to the Saudis they in turn give it to the likes of Osama bin Laden. Its an arrangement only an arms dealer could love. Are we fighting the Shiites? They are the majority of the population in Iraq and Iran. The President of Iraq ,Nouri al-Maliki , is a Shiite. He was essentially given power by getting the few remaining votes he needed to win by a fellow named Muqtada al-Sadr. He is in control of the largest militia in Iraq. He is virulently anti-american. He is also responsible for many U.S casualties in this ill fated war. To make matters even more confusing Sadr, in turn, Maliki are receiving support from Iran, who it seems the neo-cons such as Dick Cheney are now itching to go to war with. As I said before it's an arrangement only people who sell bullets, guns, and bombs could love.
That brings us to our soldiers on the ground in the current bloodbath we call Iraq. They are patrolling the streets in places like Bagdad and are nothing more than sitting ducks waiting to get shot at or blown up by I.E.D.'s. They don't know who to shoot back at because everyone looks like an enemy and they most likely are. George Bush in his most recent speech endorsed the idea of escalating this mess. In phrases that would make Orwell roll in his grave he said that by pulling troops out they would stay there longer and by keeping them there they would come home sooner. With talk like this, who is the real enemy.

Red States Do Look A Little Red

Our fellow Americans to the west sure have a split personality when it comes to our government. Any red state blue state map will tell you that the west is in the heart of republican country. What baffles me is how a region so dependent on our government could hate it so much. With all that the U.S.A does, for our western brethren, one would think that they would be having a love fest with old Uncle Sam. Lets start with the recent storms that buried much of the wild west with many feet of snow. The national guard has been called out to help get feed to the starving cattle. Do these cattle men refuse this service due to an aversion to "big government". Or maybe they open their checkbooks to reimburse the feds for the time, gas, and maintenance of these helicopters and there crew. Or maybe they just suck it up like the cowboys they are and take it. Another place our western friends like to keep there hands open and there mouth shut is when it comes to wildfire suppression. The General Accounting Office estimates that as much as one billion dollars a year is spent on the protection of private property that is threatened by fire. Thats a lot of money going to a bunch of people who would just like the government to bud out. The list could go on and on, farm subsidies, free range land courtesy of the B.L.M, an interstate highway system, a heavily subsidized airline industry, not to mention water. Many of these things listed are vital for a prosperous nation. It would be nice if our fellow Americans could show a little appreciation.

Christianists kill 5 in Bagdad today.

Islamist. On the surface it seems like a fairly innocuous term. It refers to those who are fundamental Muslims. The media argues that the term is valid because the individuals that we are fighting in Iraq are persons or organizations using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology.

The religious breakdown of the world according to the CIA is follows:

Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%)

Muslims 20.12%

Hindus 13.34%

Buddhists 5.89%

Sikhs 0.39%

Jews 0.23%

other religions 12.61%

non-religious 12.03%

atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)

Most people would agree that the major three religions are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam even though the statistics given above clearly do not support this. Let us for the sake of argument say that it is a historic artifact.

The question I have is, why do we use the term Islamist to refer to the people that we are fighting in Iraq? If I use the argument above about using religious precepts to form a political ideology, then shouldn't we at least be fair and come up with some new terms for our troops and Israeli troops. Jewist or Christianists.

President Bush has stated the God (or is it god for Christ,I get confused over the God of the Old Testament that says 'you shall have no other gods before me' and the god of the New Testament that makes Jesus equal to God so we can ignore this rule) talks to him. He is guided by his faith in his god. Are we not as a country using religious percepts to form a political ideology?

Do I even need to argue that Israel is a religious based country? We never hear that the Jewist bombed Palestine.

The power of words to taint our viewpoint is powerful. We should think twice before we use words that, by default, foster a hatred of an entire people based on their religious beliefs. Especially when it is not true.

God Bless America

Northwoods Moment

Another fine hunting season has passed in our great Northwoods. The local paper has been stuffed with picture after picture of many a fine buck shot. Along with these fine bucks is the mug of some fellow hunter. Usually there is a vague description of where the unlucky buck and the lucky hunter met. Also some useful stats such as weight ( before guts and after) and spread of those revered antlers. What I think is missing is whether or not bait was used in the pursuit of said animal. It should be the first thing listed. Why does it matter if someone can shoot a deer from a pile of corn. Why should their pictures be put in the paper for all to see.?Does anyone really care to see pictures of a bunch of people who can shoot fish in a barrel? Lets see pictures of all of the lovely does and fauns shot through skillful hunting and patience. I want to hear the stories of kids who put in day after day sitting on a runway waiting for one to come by.The time you put in hunting is the treasure. Why sell yourself short by baiting?