I also agree that not everyone who emails you is genuine in their interest in you...some are just hoping to get a lucky strike (sad but true) Some may THINK they're interested in you, but unless YOU share the same interest in them...then i think this is also a dead end...

you can forgive, but that doesn't deserve a second chance unless its for friendship

I don't think 'deserve' has anything to do with it. I don't hold myself in such high regard that people must "be worthy" of my attention.

Is It romance .... Or Is It seduction?
Posted: 8/15/2005 348 PM
Hey Ya'all Out There!

Some posts to my other threads have made me think about another question. How do you view the differences between the art of "Romance" and the art of "Seduction". To me, they are quite separate arts, yet, sometimes, entwined (and I don't mean always "physically" ). What makes each special, or different to you?

Comments pleeeeeeze????? We females are a curious lot ya know! And who practices either art more ..... men, or women?

Sandy!!

I got married because I was flattered... plain and simple.

He was 33 and I was 22. Older, yes... father figure, the jury's still out on that.

I was the only girl he brought home to meet his parents, EVER. That was where the flattery began, and ended. The rest of my life with him was h3ll.

I agreed to first get a place to live with him, because I couldn't afford a place on my own in Toronto. Then he proposed... I didn't have the b*lls to say NO. It was like a snowball starting to roll at the top of a hill, gaining in speed and size, and I couldn't stop it.

The tears on my wedding day weren't tears of joy, instead, they were tears of sorrow... for selling out.

I never loved him, because he never gave me anything to love. I hoped I could learn to love him... but that never happened. He was always mean and insulting.

The only good thing to come out of it was my beautiful daughter, whom I would never trade for the world.

Posted By: veglvr on 3/23/2006 709 PM
Subject: Married, but in love with another married woman
Message: Need some advice and opinions. I have been married 17yrs, but the intimacy is gone. We get along fine and are friends, but no passion. I have met a married woman and have fallen head over heals. It's a feeling like I have never felt for a woman before. I think about her 24hrs a day! I'm 51, she's 39. She is looking into a divorce, not because of me, but because she is not happy. I don't have any kids and never wanted any, but she has two beautiful little girls that I adore and want in my life. She says she really likes me a lot and will see me once she is free, which could be a year or more, to see if she could fall in love with me. I want to be with her so badly that I am having bouts of depression. Just the other day her 3yr old told me she loved me, which depressed me because I want them in my life so badly. Should I hang in there, as she tells me to do, and pursue the woman of my dreams, or forget her stay in my passionless marriage? No matter what happens between us, I will think about her for the rest of my life. I truly believe that she is my soulmate and the woman I have searched my entire life for. Any and all opinions appreciated. Thanks.

Both Judges ruled that teachings that are not primarily religious in nature are not contrary to the Establishment Clause and as such should be left in the curriculum. thus it is ok to teach about the religions of ancient Rome and Egypt in history classes. the key word is where it is taught, and its no a current day religion. it is taught in history not religion therefore under the establishment clause it is not religion In addition the judges ruled are not primaily regious in nature and not contracy to the establisment clause... my dear, you don't get a passing grade on this

Really? So the fact that I have spent years learning US legislature makes no difference at all,until you become an america citizen it will mean a lot. I’m not American and therefore MUST be ignorant and thick?no, you just don't have any legal standing. What about US citizens on holiday, do they no longer count as American when they go abroad?as long as the have a vail americ passport they can vote, etc

I'm afraid the poor grasp of logic is on your sides. Schools, court houses, ect, are the foundations in which Public institutions are housed, not the institutions themselves. The institution consists of its peoples and its legislature, not its property. thank god we have the constitution over there head the constitution akways comes first!!

However that is not what the law actually states. The law states that congress shall make no law regarding OR PROHIBITNG the freedom of expression. The law dose not require the schools themselves to be void of religious teaching. The law requires that the school bodies do not teach religion.i'm tired answering your posts. if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period. there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that. see ya sweetheart. it's been fun. This is an important difference as it means that prayer is acceptable at school, so long as it is not taken by the school bodies (i.e. teachers, headmasters, ect.). Bible study groups can have space allocated to them, just as music groups can, because space on school grounds is not part of the school bodies, only premises. But unlike music groups they can not receive school funding as to do so could be seen as an endorsement by the school bodies.

Definition of state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article discusses states as sovereign political entities; for other meanings, see state (disambiguation).

A state is an organized political community, occupying a territory, and possessing internal and external sovereignty, which successfully claims the monopoly of the use of force.

It may or may not have an organized government to exist. Several states have had episodes were two or more groups dispute control of the government (i.e. China in 1912) but they never lost their state quality. Thus, a government is not necessary for a state to be a state as long as its existence is recognized by the international community. However, recognition of the state's claim to sovereignty by other states, enables it to enter into international agreements. Moreover, it needs a government to control its internal affairs.

Decision

On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose by construing "academic freedom" as "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also critized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist".


Consequences

The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to still teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook had been produced Of Pandas and People which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism started in the early 1990s. This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that ID was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.

LAW CENTER
Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 11:19 a.m. EST (16:19 GMT)

vert.jones.ap.jpg
U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science.

You sound more like a polytheist to me based on what you have said here. lol.

mmm... that sounded like the "Ministry of Truth" speaking*.
Is that the healthy censorship that all your ammendments allow Mr Passport? religion is out of the equation in this thread because of federal laws prohibiting religion to being taught in public schools

I just read about this new city they are going to build in Florida "Ave Maria" funded by the guy who build up Dominos Pizza... a christian place with everything including a University... bet Darwin won't appear there often. what's your point?



*: reference to Orwell's "1984"

Thus by US law, it is clear that no law can be made restricting or endorsing Religious freedoms and the right of any state to teach of religion so long as they do not actively endorse that religion.

She clearly has a better grasp of it than most people participating in this discussion.

She has explained in her past posts that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that schools can't ENDORSE a religion, not that they can't teach that different religions exist.

Don't belittle people who have demonstrated a clear understanding of one of the most important aspects of the U.S. Constitution. And I'd like to remind you that she isn't even an American

However, the fact remains that the rule you speak of restricts congress from passing laws that will endorse a religion in the context of public education. Asking children to pray to a particular diety before class would be breaking with that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that schools can't ENDORSE a religion, not that they can't teach that different religions exist.

How many times dose it need to be pointed out that you are wrong on this point, before it gets through to you! Stopping flogging that horse, its dead already!

Tonite I have enjoyed....
Posted: 6/13/2005 644 PM

ahahahaha. as soon as start making arguements it suddenly becomes a theory again, yet half the ppl i talk to do in fact, maintain, that evolution is fact


I don't see your point. Firstly, you are creating a false dichotomy between theory and fact with regard to evolution. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is also a theory. This is the position of the vast majority of those who can rightfully be considered to be part of the scientific community (that is, they are contributors, not bystanders).

Now, note that I said the VAST majority. Thus, there is a minority who share a different opinion. Nevertheless, the official position of modern biology and modern science as a whole is that evolution is a FACT. However, the postulations regarding the actual mechanisms of evolution are a matter of theory. Consider the following quotations.

Quoting Stephen J. Gould:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

This is an older quotation. So, perhaps the community has changed its mind since then? Well, since you are arguing that the scientific community is holding onto evolution, then apparently we are agreed that this position has not changed.

3 more quotes:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate xcept when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Regarding the issue of microevolution:

Some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts [referring to fact and theory]. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

-Evolution is a Fact and a Theory by Laurence Moran Copyright © 1993-2002

In agreement with Mr. Moran, I don't personally believe that there is any reason to argue about this issue with a creationist, firstly because I'm not really looking to argue, and secondly from my own experience. Having been on a creationist in the past, I am very familiar with the methods by which one would challenge the facthood of evolution. If you look closely, you will notice that MOST creationists are:

(1) NOT authorities in any of the scientific disciplines from which they glean information
(2) NOT interested in fully investigating the positions of those who have generated the body of knowledge from which the fact and theory of evolution is derived
(3) ARE primarily interested in debate, which is a discipline that is primarily adversarial in nature, NOT cooperative (Ronald Reagan was a great debator because he knew how to be likable and how to be persuasive, not because he was more knowledgable. He knew how to debate, and debating is a contest, not an investigation of facts)
(4) VERY rarely are participating members of the scientific community, that is, they do not actually contribute knowledge through experimentation and research
(5) USUALLY believe that their arguments are very convincing, yet never seem to notice that they are only convincing to those who have sparse knowledge of the subject matter, either on the side of scientific knowledge, or on the side of the persuasive tactics used by debators. The arguments hinge upon making the opposing view SOUND wrong, or LOOK absurd
(6) BELIEVE that their religious belief is primarily derived from more or less scientific, that is, empirical observation (juxtaposing one's superior reasons for belief to the inferior reasons of those who just "blindly" believe, that is, "those who have not seen and yet believe")
(7) FAIL to realize that faith is the only basis for religious belief. Christianity wasn't built on empirical evidence, but on faith. That is why it is called a "faith", not a science, not a philosophy, not an "-ism".
(8) FREQUENTLY devote most of their time debating this issue, while spending less time actually studying the bible to know God, which is illogical if the goal of religious belief is spiritual growth
(9) DON'T perceive any real difference (if at all) between confidence and faith

I believe that it is beneficial to clarify what the scientific community's position is on the issue of evolution as a fact and as a theory. This I have done. If you wish to debate their position, or the fact thereof, do so with those who are of the community, as they would be the people who you should be most interested in discussing your ideas with, and they would also be most capable of facilitating an honest and informed discussion of the facts if that is what you'd desire.

I brought up a few instances of science that are taught in the classroom to justify why I thought Creation had a place in the classroom. Ex: You can prove no more to me that Dark Matter exists than I can prove to you that God exists. So if you're going to teach one, then you have to be willing to teach the other since they are both at least as sound as the other.

The US Constitution does not forbid "religion in public schools." The US Constitution (and attendant precedents set by judicial rulings) forbids the endorsing of a particular religion in public schools. The deal is, you can teach about religion, just not teach the religion itself. With regard to what Angel is saying, the creation account in Genesis could be taught about, just like the creation accounts in any other religion. The point is not to advocate or give preference to any particular one as truth.

Because it is part of a religion. Because it is the way some people understand the world. At least some of us need to understand, analyse and deconstruct this fact. Teach me that, I want to know how. Desconstruction of Creationism is the key part.

Bingo

Some seem to think being a pest, is some kind of a rebuttal.

.......It's just, "being a pest"?

The first article isn't discussing law, it's discussing evidence, and in scientific terms, not legal terms.

This was a science thread - the first post asks 'where is the beef' not 'isn't this against the law'. Here it is, in toto:

Untrue. You can teach religion in US public schools.

One of the most critical issues in the legal realm has been defining science, and scientific method in order to determine whether I.D. Theory would fit within the said definition.

So I would suggest that defining science is critical to this debate. Also, it is still a debatable as the courts decisions are subject to change if they are appealed to a higher level of court.

Cheers

Oddly, this thread isn't all about 'law'. It started with a discussion of Creation and Evolution, and issues of science and pseudo-science. Perhaps you might go back and read page 1 for a refresher?

The definition of 'science' has nothing to do with the subject "Creation vs Evolution"? Fascinating.

Given that ID is just Creationism renamed, and that various anti-science types are trying to shove it into the public school system as science, you couldn't be more depressingly wrong if you tried.

[Mind you, half the time it's pretty much impossible for people to parse whatever the heck you're saying anyhow. Is there some sort of Charlie-to-English translator site on the web, like Babelfish, that we could use maybe?]

--R. 'call it Babblefish, or Finnegan's Wack'

Really? Please define 'science', then show what changes were made to accomodate evolution as science. Shouldn't be hard, eh?

What year did they change the definition anyhow? Maybe just give the before-and-after versions so we can all see how you arrived at that claim?

Someone who knows so much about the subject must have that sort of information at their fingertips...

Look at this way (hypotheitcal): my wife just cheated on me. Ah well, I love her. So it's no bog deal. She's forgiven because my love is unconditional. Darn it all! She did it again. Well, I love her, and it's unconditional. Damn it, she just maxed out three different credit cards. Well, even though it can take me years to get my credit respectable, I still love her unconditional, so it's all good. Look at that--she got blazingly drunk again, wrecked her car for the 4th time, despite tons of therapy . . . blah, blah, blah.

Unconditional love is a myth in romantic relationships. It isn't practical. People will say that they believe in unconditional love in a relationship just because of ideological notions, and they will specifically say it on this forum to impress one another in hopes that a "special" someone will email him or her--because your ideas of love and romance are so wonderful. What a bunch of crap

Life isn't ideology. Life is pragmatic. Unconditional love is a recipe that will turn a lover into a ruler, not a partner. You must have boundaries, you must have conditions, otherwise you will be eaten alive in a relationship.

Dying for someone is easy,


If its so easy, why dont you try it?

You would die for them. You make each other better people, for even knowing each other. You downright hands down head over heals no holds barred LOVE THEM. And when you have a fight even a small one....you felt like you have ben hit by a mack truck, and are the first to appoligize.

Unconditional love is all about sacrifice, you give your soul your heart and your body to them and fully trust them....

To die for someone requires one choice. One sacrifice. And then you are done. Finis.

I only wanted to know what they were going to teach in their ID science course

Just have some 'faith' I am sure the science part of the theory will show itself when the time is right..

Dying for someone is easy.

It is Living for them that is hard.

I just want to say I am sorry for the caps. I did not do it on purpose...I will now be more aware......Thanks for sharing that..

unconditional love to me is no restrictions, no requirements,no I will love you if onlys, in other words love regardless of income, weight, height or age. Also unconditional love accepts whatever health a person is in, what kind of car they drive or where they live...

Unconditional love? Wanting the person you love to be happy. If thats with you or not, thats how I feel. Does'nt stop the pain of them not thinking they could be just as happy with you.

Unconditional love doesn't happen for partners.

The opposite of conditioned love.

I agree with Summer Teeth and Look In, except for pets I would put them in the same basket as partners. Family are the only ones that have your unconditional love. I know with my children there are times when I feel would gladly give them away, but at the end of the day when their in their beds sleeping and I pop in to check on them My heart melts and all the bad feelings go away or when my 6 year old brings me in a coffee in bed (its so I will get him his breakfast) or after school when they say they have missed you and they love you. But there is not unconditional love for partners that is why there is a thing called divorce. And to the person you started this forum love is a two way street. Where was her unconditional love fot you?

No matter what they do
where you are
what they say
where they go
who they are with
You love them and want them to be happy and well.

I am fortunate to have this in my life both from me and for me. There is no better feeling.

YES,I AGREE WITH YOU....I COULD LOVE INCONDITIONAL AND ACCEPT SOMEONE FOR WHO THEY ARE..HOWEVER I DO NOT NEED TO ACCEPT UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONDITIONS...I LOVE MY EX HUSBAND, HOWEVER HE IS A WOMANIZER, I HAVE DEALT WITH IT FOR A LONG TIME...I MOVED ON SINCE...WE CAN BOTH LOVE EACH OTHER AND CO=EXIST..IT JUST CANNOT BE..IF I WANT TO GIVE MY LIFE TO GOD I WOULD OF BEEN A NUN....THIS IS AM MAN...AND I AM NOT A NUN....I CAN DEAL WITH ALOT, NOT CHEATING CONSTANLY...PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, BUT WHEN THEY CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME THINGS OVER AGAIN AND EXPECT DIFFERENT RESULTS, THIS IS CALL INSANITY....HE WILL NOT CHANGE, ITS YEARS NOW, AND HE IS STILL DOING THE SAME THING TO OTHER WOMAN...HE HAS ISSUES, AND THEY ARE NOT MINE, OR ANYONE ELSES.. BOTTOM LINE: I STILL LOVE HIM.....I JUST CANNOT LIVE WITH HIM...GOOD LUCK

I am resonably certain that the constitution dose not forbid religion from public schools. If memory serves, it states that the state will not PROMOTE religion, NOR will it REPRESS it.

Yes pasportcharlie, why not? Creation is a valid part of the most popular religious dogma in the western world, and if you are going to teach about religion at all, then you should at leat teach about the most popular ones so people have some knowledge of them.

Creationism is Religion and so should be taught in Religious Education class, Evolution is Science and so should be taught in Science class. What is so hard to understand about that?undefined