Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Jason S Friday, February 03, 2006 - 17:04 (Agree/Disagree?) One big question that children have is: How did the universe begin? What would you tell them? You can use the “Big Bang” theory. That, however, rings a little hollow, once the child realizes that matter cannot be created or destroyed.I left TF when I was young enough to attend high-school in the US. I did, and the way that my science teacher presented it to us was that there are only theories about how we began, in existence. I think that she did a good job. She said that, by carbon-dating we see that the world is four to five billion years old. Mrs. Banks also said that, some people believe that the universe began as a spec of matter, with no volume, but with immeasurable density, which exploded, and formed the universe. She then said that, some people believe that the universe is only six thousand years old. She made an illusion to the idea of intelligent design, but didn’t go into the details. She couldn’t seem to resolve the conflict between her understanding of the Bible, and knowing that the earth is up to five billion years old. Given Mrs. Banks’ limited understanding of the Bible, she covered this topic the only way any responsible educator would; since the question is scientifically unanswerable, she presented the most prevalent, conflicting theories. What would you do? (reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, February 06, 2006, 06:48 (Agree/Disagree?) That's interesting that she made an "illusion to the idea of intelligent design"[sic] considering that this idea has always been an illusion and has never been intelligent. Below is the transcript of a brief conversation between myself and my ficticious 10 year old son Argyle who I will never have. Argyle: "Daddy, where did the Universe come from?" exister: "Nobody knows and it doesn't matter." Argyle: "Why doesn't it matter?" exister: "Because when it starts to matter then people get all anxious and hung up on the question of where they came from, which inevitably leads them to become religious fanatics. Once they become religious fanatics they start doing stupid shit like having Crusades, bombing buildings, trying to control people's private lives, raping and brutalizing children and all sorts of other mayhem just because their pathetic inner child is curled up in the fetal position and completely unable to muster the courage to face the utter pointlessness of its origin and destiny. Now go back to your room and finish reading that Nietzche book that Daddy gave you for your birthday." (reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 08:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I pity you fictional son.(reply to this comment)

From exister Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 08:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not your son, fictional or otherwise.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Shit.Meant "your" not "you". Note the lack of coma above.(reply to this comment)

From umm Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 15:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Or the presence of coma...(reply to this comment)

From Fish Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) In my reply not his, morron.(reply to this comment)

From umm Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 16:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the compliment (I assume you actually meant to call me a "moron"), but that's what I was referring to: the comatose comment that lacked a comma and said "you" instead of "your." I was just being silly. Be so Happy!(reply to this comment)

from J&B Friday, January 13, 2006 - 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I think "Under God" should be left in there. I think the majority of Americans still associate morals with God, or a divine existence. I think it holds little religious value. Besides, the only people that would oppose to it would be athiests or satanists, which I think are a very small minority. Could be wrong. (reply to this comment)

From exister Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 08:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Other people who oppose the term "under God" might be those who are of the opinion that it is too similar to the term "God's little bitch" for their liking.(reply to this comment)

From MegaGroan Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 22:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree Exister, "Under God" asserts the supremacy of the Judeo-Christian concept of the almighty. (In contrast the motto: "God Bless America" is not exclusionary or supremacist.) If we asked Christianists to say a pledge that included the words "One Nation Under Allah" or "One Nation under Krishna" what do you think they would say? Worse still, "...Under God" wasn't even a part of the original pledge, it was added by those damn McCarthyites. http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm I think they should change it to "One Nation, many of whom believe in God." (reply to this comment)

From vixen Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 04:34 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm curious as to why you feel that belief in God merits mention at all? (reply to this comment)

from AG Friday, January 13, 2006 - 07:51 (Agree/Disagree?) What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagi- nation? Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unob tainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks! Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men! Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stun- ned governments! Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a canni- bal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb! Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose fac- tories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smokestacks and antennae crown the cities! Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind! Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch! Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! . . . . (reply to this comment)

From conjoined twins Friday, January 13, 2006, 08:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I posted this fragment of a poem (by a. ginsberg) but I take it back; I shouldn't have posted it - maybe becasue it sounds too much like another 'berg' we all know (and depise).(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Monday, February 06, 2006, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Dave, Francis Ford Coppola is priducing a film of 'On the Road', with Walter Salles directing. Should be interesting.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 12:12 (Agree/Disagree?) NO! Ginsberg Rocks! We musn't let Berg ruin everything.(reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, February 06, 2006, 06:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Correction my friend. Ginsberg rocked back when he was having gay sex in back alleys with Kerouac. However, once he joined up with the North American Man Boy Love Association he very abruptly and completely ceased to rock.(reply to this comment)

from Baxter Friday, January 13, 2006 - 01:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Having your constitution affirming subordination to God is a bit like our government still being under monarchial rule: it's a symbolic designation based on tradition, and one that should never be taken seriously. It serves no functional purpose nor should it ever. Nations need a certain degree of symbolism woven into their construction, otherwise they seem cold and inhuman. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, January 13, 2006, 02:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree, while our monarch seldom fully uses her powers under the Royal Prerogative, I think that it serves as an essential check-and-balance to Parliament, and ensures that our government cannot be usurped by tyrannical (even if popular) individuals. I am a supporter of the monarchy, and I respect the value of individuals holding power who have been trained their whole lives for just this role, and who are by definition far better able to make decisions that will be advantageous in the long-term, since they are not forced to pander to the electorate or media in every passing trend, so as to maintain their popularity. As recent history has shown, the House of Lords has been a far better guardian of our individual freedoms than the (elected) House of Commons.(reply to this comment)

from steam Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 14:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I thing GG should register and put up a profile. It seems you are very proud of the conclusions you have drawn in life, so if you do not want people to know anything about you (i.e second generation, etc) it makes it seem as if you are embarrased about what you have to say. By the way as grating as your comments are to me. In that they seem to be emotionally rather than intelligently fueled I am glad you feel free to say them. That's what free speech is. I must say though that the tone of your comments does not come across as concerned for your fellow man, so if you want others to be attracted to your way of thinking, you may want to exude a greater concern for others. Have a great day. (reply to this comment)

From GG Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 04:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I think I should be frigging free to post when I like, without putting up an open profile. I don't want to receive shitloads of email cause I simply don't have time to go through it. I talk out of concern. If I didn't give a shit about the world I would just keep my mouth shut. I talk about important things in my life such as faith in God and Patriotism. I am proud of my opinion, but don't have time for email.(reply to this comment)

From exister99 Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 12:27 (Agree/Disagree?) How cute. You are actually laboring under the self absorbed delusion that your opinions are so groundbreaking and controversial that anyone, let alone a large number people, would waste the time to email you about them. If I wanted more information about the tiresome bile that constantly dribbles from your xenophobic mouth I would just tune in to The Fox News Channel, AM talk radio or any of the other countless media sources that you mindlessly regurgitate. Oh and by the way, God died in the 19th century and patriotism in excess always leads to fascism. Cheers, exister99 (fearing the flood of email :- o )(reply to this comment)

From sassy Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 08:54 (Agree/Disagree?) God Sux!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 09:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Isn't that working on the presupposition that God indeed IS?(reply to this comment)

From exister99 Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, he IS dead.(reply to this comment)

From solemn Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 13:12 (Agree/Disagree?) You are assuming he/she/it ever existed. Are you sure?(reply to this comment)

From exister99 Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 13:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Who's on First?(reply to this comment)

From solemn Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 14:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn, I wanted to see how long that thread would go.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 05:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You can make a profile without allowing other members to email you.(reply to this comment)

from sailor Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge during the Eisenhower administration in the 50s. The 50s was when there was the threat of Communism so Eisenhower added "the under God" to reaffirm that we weren't like them, atheists. This is from a judgment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the phrase unconstitutional: "The hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon ... the Creator ... [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." "The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance sends a message to nonbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." The Founding Fathers didn't intend for it to be that way, the Founding Fathers didn't intend to make a country based on a religion and the pledge is meant to be about loyalty to our nation, not God. So in my opinion, "under God" should be out. It doesn't make you any less patriotic to want it gone. If you are a Christian, I don't think you would want your kid to be saying "under Buddha", or "under Shiva." (reply to this comment)

From GG Thursday, January 12, 2006, 10:18 (Agree/Disagree?) You probably also think we should open all the borders and accept everybody from every religion race and country to sacrifice goats on their front lawn and all love each other like brothers. Under God is already neutral enough. it doesn't say which God. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Thats the same paranoid logic that says "if we allow same sex marriage soon we will have to allow people to marry animals." His opinion on the pledge of alegiance has nothing to do with immigration. And what have you got against brotherly love?(reply to this comment)

From solemn Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) In debate it's a falacy called a "slippery slope".(reply to this comment)

From sailor Thursday, January 12, 2006, 14:20 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you associate removing the phrase "under God," with opening all the borders? (reply to this comment)

from GG Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 04:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck yeah they should stay!! Faith in God is the foundation of our country. Patriotism comes from the spirit of our founding fathers. Its the spirit of freedom, the American Dream and the American way. Its the spirit of national pride and unity. Many states but one nation many soldiers but one Army. Patriotism is allegiance to God and country, unlike englands queen and country. Because we fight for God and country there is nothing we cannot endure and we can lose no war. America was founded a religious nation. There would be no reason to debate this topic if it werent for all the athiest immigrants. Our forefathers made this mighty nation to get away from secular europe and practice their faith freely. Patriotism is raging love and pride of God and Country and the principles on which we carved out this country. Equalitarianism is not patriotism. Equalitarians think America is a secular nation. Equalitarians think patriotism is love of people. If so why stop with American people? If you went by that belief you should be loving arabs and terrorists just the same way. In that sense Equalitarianism is unrealistic and can only encourage anarchy. Equalitarians are morons who believe in total equality and freedom without control. There is no such thing. Criminals don't have the freedom to walk the streets. Murderers do not have the freedom to buy arms. Violent husbands do not have the freedom to go near their wifes. Freedom is the prerogative of men who abide by certain moral boundaries which are defined in the constitution and the laws. Where do you draw the line inbetween Equalitarian liberals and anarchy? You can't. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 12:19 (Agree/Disagree?) You are so racist, its disgusting.(reply to this comment)

From ~"~ Sorry if I'm a bit stoopid. Thursday, January 12, 2006, 07:14 (Agree/Disagree?) "Equalitarianism" !? Did you mean Egalitarianism?(reply to this comment)

From maybe we all are Thursday, January 12, 2006, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) They're pretty much synonyms.(reply to this comment)

From vixen Thursday, January 12, 2006, 04:50 (Agree/Disagree?) If your faith in this God of yours is what has made you into the character you have shown yourself to be through your obviously ignorant and irrational diatribes on this site, then, to all intents and purposes, you are yet another massive confirmation to me of everything that is wrong with fundamentalist Religion. You have simply traded the cultic, unthinking, dumb-sheep-following-blindly thought proccesses built into you by your background for another, equally dangerous, standpoint. (reply to this comment)

From GG Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 04:27 (Agree/Disagree?) What is the connection with fundamentalism? I do not blindly follow anything I chose to be Christian and I chose to be Republican and I chose to be a father and I chose to face the fact that there is good and evil black and white. This is not fundamentalist or extremist.(reply to this comment)

From vixen Thursday, January 19, 2006, 04:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I made the connection with fundamentalism because of the way you consistently base your arguments on your faith. You excuse your extremist views by claiming to be concerned with your duty to a 'Loving God' whilst simultaneously adopting a moral stance that is anything but loving, compassionate and respectful. Your views are consistently fundametalist in that you can see nothing other than black or white in any given situation. The continuous assertion that your way is the *only* right way IS definable as fundamentalism.(reply to this comment)

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I should preface all this by saying that I don't consider myself either an avowed atheist or a religious person but I do live in the U.S. IMHO, I don't think the "under God" needs to be removed from the pledge nor does "In God we Trust" need to be stricken from currency. I'm a strong advocate of separation of Church and State (as are many, many Americans) but not all advocates of separation are antipathetic towards religion in general. To carve out every instance of a reference towards "God" in governmental documents would be too extreme and impractical in my view. What I find highly objectionable is the promotion of a SPECIFIC religion in public schools as it basically constitutes proselytization. A child's religious exposure should be the result of their parents' thoughtful choices rather than the arbitrary result of whatever religion or belief system the principal of their school happens to subscribe to. Fortunately most parents make more sensible choices than ours. ;) I think the largest controversy with intelligent design is when it's inserted into a science curriculum as it obviously lacks any basis in science. In a philosophy course or one on history of religion I think most Americans would find it appropriate. However, occasionally I hear about schools trying to sneak a bunch of "science-based" intelligent design stuff produced by Christian groups into a course and calling it a philosophy course and running into legal trouble. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 23:19 (Agree/Disagree?) It would be impossible for a youngster to understand many of the political issues currently in the spotlight, without understanding that certain major religions are based on the theory of intelligent design. As long as there are so many Muslims, Jews and Christians out there, the youngsters need to be taught these things in order to promote religious tolerance. I think the question is really, when, and in what context should the theory be taught. That said, religious history certainly seems to be the appropriate candidate. (reply to this comment)

from mugthebug Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 18:17 (Agree/Disagree?) i say leave the god in there we all have a "god" whether it be money fame power or a higher power (reply to this comment)

From no we don't Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 19:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Money isn't a god, its money. Don't speak for everyone else, and learn how to punctuate, what are you 12?(reply to this comment)

From vixen Thursday, January 12, 2006, 01:20 (Agree/Disagree?) In my not-so-very-humble opinion, you should not condescendingly order someone else to 'learn how to punctuate' unless you can first demonstrate that you yourself possess the skills to do so. Just a thought...(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Friday, January 13, 2006, 12:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I definetely think they should remove, "Under God" out of the pledge! Considering this was only added into the pledge in the 50's it's a fairly new concept and really has nothing to do with our government or even our concept of freedom and ideaology for our nation. America is a changing nation, freedom is a process, therefore what was once beneficial for our nation, i.e. strict religious beliefs, puritanical blue laws etc...is no longer efficient nor applicable to our generation and our country. (reply to this comment)