Re: o

Ron Dean wrote:

Dexter wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:
 

Dexter wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:
 

vallor wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote in
<AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
 

RonO wrote:

>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-

intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-
e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html

 
 
 
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some
alternative "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but
there is no recommendation on what an honest and acceptable
answer would be since the "theory" that they want to get into
the public schools isn't a scientific theory, and should
probably be labeled as to what it is in any discussion on the
topic.  If the legislators believe otherwise they should have
made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
honest as to what they were doing.

 >
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted
to know why Intellignet Design is wrong,

 
The answer to the question is "mu".
 
(The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
that it is "right".)
 
Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker.  Is that
a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell
checker "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your
bigoted statement, hmmm?
 

My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I
question that you love terrorist.  But what other reason for
challenging my view?

-------------------------------------
 
Interesting that you should introduce the topic of terrorism in this
thread.  If one examines recent christian history, I think it could
properly be said that christianity shares some distinct terroristic
tendencies with other contemporary religions.
 

In my view, there is absolutely no justification for any terrorism
regardless of who's the perpetrator or whatever is the cause. I made this
clear: so, why do you bring this up?

 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1957842/
 

>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/atlanta.htm

 

>

https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eric-Rudolph
 

>

https://prochoice.org/violence-against-abortion-providers-continues-to-rise-following-roe-reversal-new-report-finds/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
 

-------------------------------------
 
You're the one who noted your bigotry was towards terror and terrorists.
Aren't the actions noted in these links those of terrorists who's motives
are based on their religious beliefs?
 

Whatever the cause. This certainly does not exclude their religious beliefs.
 
 It seems I may have found your blind spot.

 

-------------------------------------

The cause is specifically their religious belief.  Of course you brushed
that aside.