Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
And here's the thing Hoka, I'm not one of those people who bows to the idea that religion (creationism) should be given EQUAL time.
The religious side has had thousands of years to PROVE their ideas and they STILL have no proof while the evolutionists have only had a couple of hundred of years to prove their ideas and they have a LOT of evidence for their ideas.
So no, I, we, don't have to give equal time to you or your ideas. You and your side have had enough time and haven't been able to produce ANY evidence.
It's like if this were a court of law, if you still haven't been able to provide any evidence in a case for thousands of years than I think everyone (or at least any reasonable person) would agree there really is no case.
"Really judge, I know you have given me 2000 years to prove my case and I haven't been able to do so but I PROMISE, if you just give me 2000 more years I'll be able to prove it."
The religious side has had thousands of years to PROVE their ideas and they STILL have no proof while the evolutionists have only had a couple of hundred of years to prove their ideas and they have a LOT of evidence for their ideas.
So no, I, we, don't have to give equal time to you or your ideas. You and your side have had enough time and haven't been able to produce ANY evidence.
It's like if this were a court of law, if you still haven't been able to provide any evidence in a case for thousands of years than I think everyone (or at least any reasonable person) would agree there really is no case.
"Really judge, I know you have given me 2000 years to prove my case and I haven't been able to do so but I PROMISE, if you just give me 2000 more years I'll be able to prove it."
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Give "equal time" to: "carbon dating no work, we can't do geology" in geology classrooms.dali wrote:And here's the thing Hoka, I'm not one of those people who bows to the idea that religion (creationism) should be given EQUAL time.
The religious side has had thousands of years to PROVE their ideas and they STILL have no proof while the evolutionists have only had a couple of hundred of years to prove their ideas and they have a LOT of evidence for their ideas.
So no, I, we, don't have to give equal time to you or your ideas. You and your side have had enough time and haven't been able to produce ANY evidence.
It's like if this were a court of law, if you still haven't been able to provide any evidence in a case for thousands of years than I think everyone (or at least any reasonable person) would agree there really is no case.
"Really judge, I know you have given me 2000 years to prove my case and I haven't been able to do so but I PROMISE, if you just give me 2000 more years I'll be able to prove it."
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
mockbee wrote: But until some well respected and widely lauded scientists modifies/disproves portions of evolution, that's what you teach.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
clickie wrote:hokahey you need to chill out..I know you like to argue and play the devils advocate but lately it seems like thats all youre interested in doing.
Jasper wrote:Hoka, get a grip, man. You're losing it. Just...wow.
You guys are so right. I spent all night in bed tossing and turning, thinking about the internet and how angry it makes me. I then wept quietly to myself until it was time to get up for work. The doctor actually tells me that if I spend more than an hour a day on the internet that I may have another internet related heart attack, and this time I'll die. Thanks for the advice guys. You're true friends and I'm sorry that I am so clearly and completely out of control, ranting and raving about nothing to try and convince the world that I am right about everything.
No, not at all. My point is if a particular community wants to teach a particular curriculum I take no issue with it. If we want to talk about the constitution, that's what it's about. Liberty and government of the people at the lowest level. Not federally dictated and mandated education for every citizen. Again, that's all fine and good until something you disagree with is mandated.dali wrote:Hoka, you're still acting like there is a debate of creationism (religion) vs biology??
The larger point is the atheist agenda is so rabidly anti christian sometimes that I think they risk becoming what they claim to be fighting back against. Zealots.
I am NOT arguing against evolution. I am arguing FOR small government.
Supporting a right does NOT mean supporting every position taken under that right.
Being pro freedom of speech does not mean I support the KKK.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Hoka, the "smaller government" stuff is weird on its own. Is is not an implication of your view that if, say, Nebraska, decided that it was cheaper and better to just not have free public education at all, you'd be totally fine with that, since it's within a "state's rights" to do so, and it would be "worse" if the federal government told them they had to have free public education?
Does this not make you think the anti-big-government view is basically absurd? You can be against particular expenditures, and be for fiscal responsibility and minimal interference in personal life, without having to be comitted to "small government"...
Does this not make you think the anti-big-government view is basically absurd? You can be against particular expenditures, and be for fiscal responsibility and minimal interference in personal life, without having to be comitted to "small government"...
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Your absolutist claims about state vs federal power confuses me. We already had this war 150 years ago. Do you think it's time for another?
And what make the states so fantastic over Federal? I'm sure some counties in California have some pretty major issues with the state. Should they make their own state?
I totally agree that there should be a freedom for schools to choose their curriculum, but we are talking right now about federally funded public schools, that's the way it is right now and there should be requirements that you can't just teach children that 1+1=3 just because the community decreed it. You can go crazy in the private schools if you wish, but not public.
And what make the states so fantastic over Federal? I'm sure some counties in California have some pretty major issues with the state. Should they make their own state?
I totally agree that there should be a freedom for schools to choose their curriculum, but we are talking right now about federally funded public schools, that's the way it is right now and there should be requirements that you can't just teach children that 1+1=3 just because the community decreed it. You can go crazy in the private schools if you wish, but not public.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I don't think private schools should have that right either, though... Or rather, I think they should be required to teach the common curriculum, and then they can add whatever they like on top.mockbee wrote:Your absolutist claims about state vs federal power confuses me. We already had this war 150 years ago. Do you think it's time for another?
And what make the states so fantastic over Federal? I'm sure some counties in California have some pretty major issues with the state. Should they make their own state?
I totally agree that there should be a freedom for schools to choose their curriculum, but we are talking right now about federally funded public schools, that's the way it is right now and there should be requirements that you can't just teach children that 1+1=3 just because the community decreed it. You can go crazy in the private schools if you wish, but not public.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
getting back to the Original map, I am shocked that Florida is "average" considering HOW MANY average religious people I knew who moved down there & became born agains.
I know my handful of people do not equate a survey but it seems all the people who were former NY'ers born Catholic, mild practicing. Became Floridians and found Jesus
I know my handful of people do not equate a survey but it seems all the people who were former NY'ers born Catholic, mild practicing. Became Floridians and found Jesus
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I think maybe that shows just how religious the rest of the country is outside of the eastern seaboard.Romeo wrote:getting back to the Original map, I am shocked that Florida is "average" considering HOW MANY average religious people I knew who moved down there & became born agains.
I know my handful of people do not equate a survey but it seems all the people who were former NY'ers born Catholic, mild practicing. Became Floridians and found Jesus
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I meant that Florida should of been above average like the other Southern States
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I would absolutely be fine with that.Adurentibus Spina wrote:Hoka, the "smaller government" stuff is weird on its own. Is is not an implication of your view that if, say, Nebraska, decided that it was cheaper and better to just not have free public education at all, you'd be totally fine with that, since it's within a "state's rights" to do so, and it would be "worse" if the federal government told them they had to have free public education?
But how likely is that to happen? Does Nebraska want to compete with other states for business? Good luck doing that without a public education system.
States compete against one another all the time in a variety of ways. Hell, Florida doesn't have an income tax. Why is that acceptable? Why can some states offer healthcare to all of their citizens? Why can some states offer more tax breaks for businesses to move there?
Because they're functioning as intended. There are states for a reason. We don't just have the USA. We have 50 individual states within that are tied under the constitution but then compete against one another for how to do it best. This applies in most ways, except when the federal government chooses to intervene. Like in California where the citizens are clearly ok with medical marijuana but the feds won't let them. That should be an obvious rallying point for liberals for states rights. People that are not states rights advocates forget that states generally operate individually except in these handful of instances where the feds decide their rules supercede what the state wants for itself. Then when people say "that's wrong, inconsistent, and against the constitution" they freak out and say "bbbbut slavery and we're all one nation and stuff!" Not understanding that states ALREADY function somewhat autonomously in many ways, as intended.
Unnecessary. That's what the 10th amendment is for. Which, by the way, is irrelevant to slavery which is obviously the antithesis of freedom. So states rights is not advocating slavery if that's where you're going.mockbee wrote:Your absolutist claims about state vs federal power confuses me. We already had this war 150 years ago. Do you think it's time for another?
Where in the constitution is this permissable? But yes, in many ways counties already operate indepedently of others within each state with their own rules. As it should be. How many dry counties are there within some states? Counties where you can smoke indoors at a business but not in others?I'm sure some counties in California have some pretty major issues with the state. Should they make their own state?
Right. Which is why we need to end the DOE. And stop making me pay for schools if I have no intention of utilizing it. Let private schools compete for students and let the states/counties decide if they need to offer a free/public option.I totally agree that there should be a freedom for schools to choose their curriculum, but we are talking right now about federally funded public schools, that's the way it is right now and there should be requirements that you can't just teach children that 1+1=3 just because the community decreed it. You can go crazy in the private schools if you wish, but not public.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
So you are saying you are fine with how Federal, State, County jurisdictions shake out....... except where you are not? (and yes we do have a lovely Constitution)
That's what I am saying as well, which is probably why this conversation never goes anywhere.
I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
That's what I am saying as well, which is probably why this conversation never goes anywhere.
I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
You undermine efficiency and effectiveness of some kinds of public services if you allow private options, or don't make it single-payer. This is most pronounced in insurance and education.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
And this is what the argument eventually boils down to everytime I have this debate. Which disturbs me a little, because it's saying you're fine with an overreaching federal government functioning contrary to how they're supposed to because they're mandating things you agree with. What happens when they don't? They should not have that level of authority.mockbee wrote: I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
Perhaps, but what happens when these options are governed by the largest possible beaurocracy as opposed to many smaller bodies? Are they still more efficient? Look at welfare. Is welfare best governed at the federal level or the local level? Who will better be able to have a read on the needs of each participant? Which level will best understand how to govern the program based on unique local conditions? The answer is obvious.Adurentibus Spina wrote:You undermine efficiency and effectiveness of some kinds of public services if you allow private options, or don't make it single-payer. This is most pronounced in insurance and education.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Exactly.mockbee wrote:So you are saying you are fine with how Federal, State, County jurisdictions shake out....... except where you are not? (and yes we do have a lovely Constitution)
That's what I am saying as well, which is probably why this conversation never goes anywhere.
I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
2 words-Love Canal. Hooker Chemical (a private company) dumped 21 tons of highly toxic waste & wiped out a town off the map. For $1.
The superfund list for the US is big.
BUT then again you had Christie Todd Whitman the head of the EPA on 9/11 lie and say the air quality in lower Manhattan specifically at ground zero was ok.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
You might enjoy this, and it might help with thinking about the questions you ask (especially since the last thing you say is false, lol):hokahey wrote:And this is what the argument eventually boils down to everytime I have this debate. Which disturbs me a little, because it's saying you're fine with an overreaching federal government functioning contrary to how they're supposed to because they're mandating things you agree with. What happens when they don't? They should not have that level of authority.mockbee wrote: I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
Perhaps, but what happens when these options are governed by the largest possible beaurocracy as opposed to many smaller bodies? Are they still more efficient? Look at welfare. Is welfare best governed at the federal level or the local level? Who will better be able to have a read on the needs of each participant? Which level will best understand how to govern the program based on unique local conditions? The answer is obvious.Adurentibus Spina wrote:You undermine efficiency and effectiveness of some kinds of public services if you allow private options, or don't make it single-payer. This is most pronounced in insurance and education.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I will never have the chance to watch that. Just being honest. If you care to summarize that'd be great.Adurentibus Spina wrote:You might enjoy this, and it might help with thinking about the questions you ask (especially since the last thing you say is false, lol):hokahey wrote:And this is what the argument eventually boils down to everytime I have this debate. Which disturbs me a little, because it's saying you're fine with an overreaching federal government functioning contrary to how they're supposed to because they're mandating things you agree with. What happens when they don't? They should not have that level of authority.mockbee wrote: I fear the dumb and am not all that keen on allowing ineptitude to rule in this country on any level when it comes to education and the environment. I realize people in smaller numbers can make better decisions sometimes, but when it comes to those two issues, the rallying cries I hear from those smaller groups are terrifying.
Perhaps, but what happens when these options are governed by the largest possible beaurocracy as opposed to many smaller bodies? Are they still more efficient? Look at welfare. Is welfare best governed at the federal level or the local level? Who will better be able to have a read on the needs of each participant? Which level will best understand how to govern the program based on unique local conditions? The answer is obvious.Adurentibus Spina wrote:You undermine efficiency and effectiveness of some kinds of public services if you allow private options, or don't make it single-payer. This is most pronounced in insurance and education.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
He talks about a lot of stuff... don't think I can offer a summary... it would be pages long. I think he's very fair to what happens to be true about economic conservatism, but he's pretty convincing with respect to "properly structured market conditions" (which is taken right out of Adam Smith, etc, anyway).
He also knocks down the notion of the government as a consumer, and thus of taxation as "bad". The first 10 minutes even, would be good to check out if you can... no worries though... I forget that other people aren't constantly stuck in front of a computer except at work where they can't really watch videos.
Maybe others will watch it and get something from it.
He also knocks down the notion of the government as a consumer, and thus of taxation as "bad". The first 10 minutes even, would be good to check out if you can... no worries though... I forget that other people aren't constantly stuck in front of a computer except at work where they can't really watch videos.
Maybe others will watch it and get something from it.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Interesting. Maybe I can watch it on my phone on a break or something. I rarely ever turn on my home PC.Adurentibus Spina wrote:He talks about a lot of stuff... don't think I can offer a summary... it would be pages long. I think he's very fair to what happens to be true about economic conservatism, but he's pretty convincing with respect to "properly structured market conditions" (which is taken right out of Adam Smith, etc, anyway).
He also knocks down the notion of the government as a consumer, and thus of taxation as "bad". The first 10 minutes even, would be good to check out if you can... no worries though... I forget that other people aren't constantly stuck in front of a computer except at work where they can't really watch videos.
Maybe others will watch it and get something from it.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I've just found another INFOGRAPHIC type thing, and it would be interesting to compare the two:
http://www.good.is/post/how-many-minimu ... cent-life/
( http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oo ... -Map_0.pdf )
It looks sort of like the South just reports being very religious, regardless of cost of living, but elsewhere, cost of living seems inversely correlated to religiosity.
http://www.good.is/post/how-many-minimu ... cent-life/
( http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oo ... -Map_0.pdf )
It looks sort of like the South just reports being very religious, regardless of cost of living, but elsewhere, cost of living seems inversely correlated to religiosity.
- farrellgirl99
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:20 pm
- Location: Queens
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Holy shit, NY. I'd need to work 136 hours a week at my jobAdurentibus Spina wrote:I've just found another INFOGRAPHIC type thing, and it would be interesting to compare the two:
http://www.good.is/post/how-many-minimu ... cent-life/
( http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oo ... -Map_0.pdf )
It looks sort of like the South just reports being very religious, regardless of cost of living, but elsewhere, cost of living seems inversely correlated to religiosity.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
I'm sure Stalin did what he did in the name of atheism.
You have to understand that atheism is not a religion. They don't work the same.
Re: Gallup Poll: U.S. States by Religiosity
Stalin thought he was a God. Read his letters he wrote to his mom.
You have to understand, Hoka, that the epithet 'atheist' was historically a synonym for 'immoral', because morality was tied to piety (i.e., false piety, or the appearance of religiosity). This is just a fact. It's why Spinoza denied being an atheist, and why his critics often said things like: It's such a shame that such a nice person could be an atheist.
The philosophy was called an 'abomination' and worse, not because of the content, but because they thought it entailed moral nihilism.
This belief about atheism persists... the connection between a lack of faith in a higher power and amoralism or evil... it's just false, man.
As Stephen Weinberg once put it: good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
You have to understand, Hoka, that the epithet 'atheist' was historically a synonym for 'immoral', because morality was tied to piety (i.e., false piety, or the appearance of religiosity). This is just a fact. It's why Spinoza denied being an atheist, and why his critics often said things like: It's such a shame that such a nice person could be an atheist.
The philosophy was called an 'abomination' and worse, not because of the content, but because they thought it entailed moral nihilism.
This belief about atheism persists... the connection between a lack of faith in a higher power and amoralism or evil... it's just false, man.
As Stephen Weinberg once put it: good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.