atinymonkey

Two things: - You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology, and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other. Where did you get your degree?

We have covered this, I even quoted the reference that dealt with the issue. It has been ruled as unconstitutional, you know this, and your opinion on the matter does not change what has happened. What's wrong with the Atheist way? It's better than having children indoctrinated by insidious religious undercurrents into a cult, it is not? Or perhaps you would not mind if any old religious cult tried to advertise to 6 year olds? Thank you, I though I was going to have to get case studies to show the situation! It's a large consideration in all school systems. It's not really vaild to say indoctrination does not happen, and if it did the victims should have just ignored it!

Sorry, what I was referring to was the generic peer presure in society and schools to conform. Peer pressure is rather well documented, that's what I was alluding to when I said its not really an option for childern to assert the right not to recite. Children do not have enough of a sense of individuality to assess what they are doing and not doing. The idea that a child has a concept of what rights it is afforded is a rather weak one. The pledge is not given is schools with an 'opt out' clause, nor is opting out a socially acceptable thing to do. I hope that clarifys my point somewhat. No, you see that your doing here is presenting a false premise. I understand what you mean though. How about comparing it to the French system, where they have removed all references to religion (crucifix, turbans, prayer beads, muslim headscarves etc). That would infinge personal rights protected by the constitution. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3619988.stm The French Govenment wanted to ban Islamic headscarves, but found they had to ban every external reference to a religion. It's a risk that the issue could snowball in America as it did in France (but it probably won't) Perhaps thats the solution, allow people to insert whatever word they like in that part of the pledge. Seems fair to me, after all God doesn't need the publicity Well, yes and no. The quote I posted sets the mood, rather than being a technical guide to school systems. But of course, it was deemed unconstitutional by the high court. Just to save you some time, heres a link to U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige's views on the matter, which is the same as your opinion : - http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/06/06272002.html Yes, I'm sure they will. It's fun to watch the fighting in the meantime It's not taboo, it just in context. Like references to Thor and Odin are kept with the confines of lessons that involve the Norse Pantheon. It makes sense to me, anyhow.

What do you mean?

The govenment could train homosexuals to have hetrosexual sex. You know, give them a biscuit if they pick the correct partner. Individual rights are overrated anyway.

Well, not great : - http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/ But fair point.

Thanks, that's some good music. It's a bit like Badly Drawn Boy and Air. While we are trading pal's bands, one of mine hads a site with downloads on it too - http://www.theblims.com/Download.htm .They are rather good

To what level of physics are you trained?

The habit, if you perfer, of reciting the oath is the issue. When it's said, its not really an option for childern to assert the right not to recite. I'm afraid it's special pleading to say it's an infringment of freedom. For instance, we don't have an option swear alligence to Darth Vader at the start of a school year. I know what you mean, but it's not a valid argument. The Department of Education has stipulated it's rules. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) program brought in many amendments to the way religion is handled in school i.e. section 9524, which holds this statement : -

No, not really. How's the Afganistan election going?

Sorry, who are?

You focus on the person leaving the room, and on the cups and looking for any way the magician could tell what your pointing at. Your thinking there may be a behaviour pattern that you are following, or some form of suggestion presented by the magician to influence your choice. That's the bait, the misdirection. What your not focusing on is the people who don't leave the room. There is always more than one person left with the cups, and one of those people is a damn liar. They arrange a signal for each cup (look at the clock = pot 1, sit on a chair = pot 2 etc) and as the magician re-enters the room they perform the appropriate action. Nobody ever notices, because nobody does anything strange. That's the switch, the actual trick that nobody sees. If the people know each other quite well, they can change the code every time the trick is played. It's a practical demonstration of the old 'mind reader' act, but on a smaller scale.

Houdini did that a lot. He hated fake psychics, because he spent a lot of time and money trying to find a real one. He set the groundwork for a great deal of hocus pokus to be debunked in the 19c, which did us all a great deal of good.

Yup. Try being 12 years old and have a room full of relatives laughing at you the more confused you get. It's a simple bait and switch. Nothing incredible.

Well, age is part of the IQ test. So if the test didn't take your age, it would be very hard for it to judge your IQ. I'd not worry about it too much,

I'm trying not to be too offensive here, but isn't 120 average? Also, did they take your age? That part always seems to be missing on the tests I see on the web!

I always prefer discussion before I decide to kill someone over opposing viewpoints. Call me quirky.

That reminds me of my meetings last week. Apparently all I need to do is make the system 'better'. There's nothing like setting random goal to the developers. I think I'll take it to mean the management want a system that swears at the user if they make a mistake, and provides small 'motivational' electric shocks.

I concur.

It's ecumenical. It's not directly comparable. The assertion is similar to Chuang Tzu musings "Am I a man who dreamed I was a butterfly? Or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" in its ramifications to science. The scientific theory cannot be used to prove or disprove such abstract philosophical theories such as the existence of a creator or the nature of perception. I hope that helps.

How did you come to that conclusion? It seems very much like your saying you frown on homosexuality, so people should refrain from it. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean though.

Only if your looking to be convinced. I honesly don't see the bias in most of the blogs given examples, I only see a man pointing out news articals don't go into great detail about events.

Creationism and the Evangelical Church represent the fading embers of what was once a religion and is now hopelessly outmoded. Let it thrash itself out, all that can be done at the moment is containment. It's just rather sad that Creationism focuses on an impossible argument against an abstract school of thought rather than facing the reality of it's standing in the Christian faith. Creationism is a embarrassment to most Christians, and in the end people shy away from that kind of Church. If more time was spent with ecclesiastical study's rather than investing time into false arguments, perhaps the Creationist movement would carry more credence.