Copyright ©
; Sacramento Freethought. All right reserved.
The SFW is dedicated to the memory of Mildred McCallister
 |
Kevin SchultzWebmaster of Americans United - Sacramento Chapter, Board member of AOF
Re "Girl's survival hailed as 'miracle'," Feb. 27: It seems to me most odd and peculiar that a "greater being" who was "on the girl's side" would choose to direct her into a situation that would lead to possible long-term cognitive and intellectual damage. Where is the "miracle" or virtue in this? If one is handing credit to a "greater being" for rescuing a child, surely the gross negligence of that greater being allowing the child to suffer horribly in the first place should be examined and discussed. If you or I knowingly allowed a child to venture out alone into the cold to suffer horribly and then "rescued" her, our actions wouldn't be called "humbling" -- they would be called criminal. --Kevin Schultz, Sacramento Published: 2001-03-20 Back to Top of PageMixing government and religion is a dangerous idea, and for that reason these subjects were clearly separated in the Bill Of Rights in the establishment and free exercise clauses. We should be alarmed at the current wave of religious-government fervor, whether it be the Day of Prayer, faith-based partnerships or anything else that threatens each person's ability to practice their own religion, or lack of religion, through government- sponsored favoritism and privilege. --Kevin Schultz, Sacramento Published: 2001-05-11 Back to Top of Page
The need for reason Johnson also claims that without religion, humankind is left to make its own moral rules, and this has resulted in "grievous errors." Perhaps Johnson has forgotten the "grievous errors" wrought by religiously justified morality, including the biblical endorsement of slavery and subjugation of women. At the very least, the ability to generate our own moral standards means we have the ability to correct our mistakes and progress forward. A static code of biblical laws, while containing many good (yet unoriginal) moral ideas, also contains an incredible amount of antiquated and unjust moral baggage. --Kevin Schultz, Sacramento Published: 2001-06-26 Back to Top of Page
My Favorite Links
Ship of Fools Check out "Gadgets for God"! ^_^ Here are some of the different positions in the Creationist debate: Flat-Earth Society Far out. "Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis." They also plan to stash artifacts supporting the bible on Mars before a manned NASA mission can get there. Did I mention North Dakota and Idaho don't exist? ^_^ It's a fun read. http://www.flat-earth.org/ Young Earth Creationists Bible is completely true front-to-back, word-for- word. The earth is only several thousand years old. The date of the origin of the world is known. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed. http://www.creationists.org/ Scientific Creationists World isn't old. Evolution is false. Bible is true in all it says. I think this is like the Young Earth Creationist position except they use science more? http://www.scientificcreationism.org/ Old Earth Creationists Accept a lot more science (e.g., support Big Bang theory as the beginning of the universe). Advance "Intelligent Design" theories. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/agetalk/sld017.htm Theistic Evolutionists Catholic Church, and others who believe in god but support the concept of evolution. This is mainstream. http://www.creationists.org/theisticevolution.html Materialists Accept evolution as core fundamental of biology and other sciences, without a belief in god(s). As for intelligent design, it argues that the complexity of the world around us argues for a creator. I personally feel if that any being that designed such an absurd and tragic world as ours, it deserves a swift kick to the head. Here's a web site refuting some of the arguments for creationism (especially the FAQ): http://www.talkorigins.org/
Contents of the Sacramento Freethought Web Site
|
|