Let me preface my post/rant with some personal history
I am now a buddhist, converted from aitheism about 2 years ago due to my interest in science, genetics and physics chiefly. I was raised christian, but left the church @ 12 and the faith in general @ 15. I do not have any ill feelings for christians (except those few who won't stop trying to convert me). I'm politicaly a conservative with many "liberal" ideas. I'm an enviromentalist who is in favor of drilling in alaska for example. I am growing angry with the republicans, and can't stand the democrats.
Ok, so the whole x-mas vs happy holidays debate. x-mas doesn't offend me, neither does happy holidays. I readily use them both, and for the life of me can't understand why this bends people out of shape so much. There are many holidays celebrated this time of year, but x-mas is by far the biggest. I remember a few years back when the 2 were used together, merry xmas and happy holidays, and thought that was a fair compromise. So why now does xmas have to be removed from everything? I think that christains are right in feeling that xmas is under attack, because in many ways I think it is. However, non christain holidays have been under attack for a very long time from the christain comunity. In truth, most if not all, of these holidays are based on the pagan practice of winter soltice. The date of Christmas was figured a few hundred years ago based on ancient hebrew beliefs that a persons death was on the same day of their conception, and their death was celebrated as their b-day in heaven. thus december 25 was figured based on counting 9 months from Jesus's death. In europe however, december 25 was also during the winter soltice, a convient way of blending 2 seperate holidays to fit into one nice celebration. With that said, can't people just shut the fuck up and let people celebrate what they want, wishing everyone a happy holiday while not forgetting that xmas is by far the largest of those holidays?
intel design vs evolution...isn't evolution in and of itself a form of intelegent design? really, aren't you just substituting God for nature? despite the fact that science has yet to prove macro evelution what makes it any more acceptable than relgion? as a theory it certainly has more holes in it than a creation based approach. However, the debate isn't really over science vs relegion as much as it's about darwinsim vs christianty. real science can pretty much blow holes into each theory the size of texas. recent developments in qantum physics and genetics point 100% to inteligent design, just not to christanity in particular. The christain creation story however, while extremely flawed when read in literal terms, would mesh well with modern science if viwed as an analogy. In short, the only way that the intel design camp is ever going to win this debate is to shift the focus from the bible to more current scientific data, while challenging the almost 200 year old science of darwinism.
Why is it that politicians are constantly treating the us popluation like a bunch of idiots? I would find honesty much more applealing than the suggar coated crap were fed most of the time. The iraq war for example; I'm sure the administration really thought wmd's were there, in fact I'm sure they were, but the 2 months of build up gave sadam ample time to sell them off. but the war itself had nothing to with them, we wanted iraq as a political ally and military pressence in a pretty bad region of the world. why not just come out and say that in the first place?
oh my god, I promise to never post this long again. wow.