Whomever it was that said that evolution must be simply accepted is far larger of a fool than you for agreeing.

It is people like you, who spurn the questioning of postulates with spiteful rhetoric, that prevent any true progress from being made. The advancement of humanity should be free to continue unfettered (evolve?); if evolution as a concept is correct, there will eventually be some form of evidence to systematically prove it. Putting that together with people like Bill Dembski should be enough to stop schools from showing the gospel of “Inherit the Wind” to biology classes…

Failing to question accepted truth or its alternatives leads to a static, dissolving society; pursuing truth has been at the root of most, if not all, of the technological advances in modern times.

Love,

A skeptic agnostic libertarian

Certain aspects of Equal Opportunity in the workplace for Homosexuals fall under Title VII of LBJ’s 1964 Civil Rights Act, and they were also addresssed by Bill Clinton in his Executive Order of May 1998, which prohibits any job action for or against a Federal Worker due to sexual orientation.

But the AFL-CIO says “…In 33 states, it is legal to fire and otherwise discriminate against a worker because of his/her sexual orientation. In 42 states, it is legal to do so because of that worker’s gender identity and/or expression.”

This has nothing to do wih the “Commerce Clause”.

But nationally homosexuality is not a “protected class”, and it’s legal to fire someone for it. Just like you can fire someone for driving a Japanese car, or being fat or unattractive, too young (but not too old) or smoking or any number of things.

Two words: Fourteenth Amendment.

Ever hear of it? It kinda changed that whole “federal republic” thing in a big way. If you don’t like it…

But we are still a Federal Republic, not one single country run from Washington, D.C.

That’s the way it was set up. If you don’t like it, jump in the Wayback Machine, and take it up with James Madison, et.al.

Oh, were you serious with that question, Jay? I thought you were waxing rhetorical.

And, as someone else said, evolution is not something on believes. It’s something one accepts. Because the alternative is not plausible, probable or even feasible.

This is why nowadays the Republican party is the party of homophobes and racists: because republicans are soft on homophobia and racism. People shouldn’t have to wait for boycotts to be protected against criminal behavior. Discrimination isn’t just immoral. It’s a crime, with a victim.

Now pay attention: I’m not saying all Republicans are homophobes and racists; I’m saying most homophobes and racists are Republicans, because the Republican party gives them breathing space, through specious “nuanced” equivocations like our Frank offers us here.

I learned from Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” that ‘civil rights’ refers to the rights of citizens — ALL citizens. I have never swerved from that position.

Second, the last thing I heard from GW is that he “wasn’t sure” (his words) about evolution. If that’s changed, I’d appreciate the info. But if he’s genuinely “not sure”, 1) He doesn’t believe in it, and 2) It’s an embarrassment.

I didn’t say anything about God, Frank. There are Christians who believe in evolution. By itself, I wouldn’t say that evolution necessarily contradicts the possibility that God exists. What I would say is that evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of the creation story of Genesis.

Jay, for one, it’s embarrassing to us as a nation to have a leader who actively disregards scientific consensus on evolution. It betrays a Medieval mindset, long dead. Education and research suffers under a President that doesn’t respect science. Funding for basic scientific research has become more scarce in the past 7 years, and I don’t think that Bush’s distrust for science is coincidental.

Why?

What a relief! I “seem” to fall on the right side? I could be lying, huh? Or pretending, just to please the liberals here. That’s something I do a lot, eh?

It would be a travesty to have another President that doesn’t believe in evolution by natural selection.
First of all, I’m not at all sure that we do have a President that doesn’t believe in evolution by natural selection.

Second, is the idea that God made all of us that distasteful? When I whispered in my newborn son’s ear in the incubator that God knew from the beginning of the world that his mother and I would meet, and he would be born, the nurse ran and told my wife with tears in her eyes, she was so moved.

I wonder if she would have been as moved if I had said that “Lightning hit the short chains, and made them into long chains”?
perhap

And I’m well aware that we’re not living in a technocracy, Frank. I don’t need the President to be a physics PhD, or even for him to be especially slavish to scientific principles. I ask only that he understands/accepts the most basic of fundamental ideas that are important to the nation as a whole. It would be a travesty to have another President that doesn’t believe in evolution by natural selection.