Mike says; > the bottom line is that the objection to this is still not anti > religion but pro constitution and the bill of rights .
What the story says; "Most of the protests echoed the same theme: the Creation Museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo’s scientific mission." Some complained that the zoo, which receives public support through a tax levy, should not become involved with a private museum dedicated to the teachings of the Bible’s Book of Genesis. Others said a scientific institution shouldn’t link itself to a place that argues man once lived side by side with dinosaurs." "...Instead, they found themselves mired in a heated debate between creationists and evolutionists over the origins of mankind. Thanks to the Internet, the opposition needed only a few days to organize a worldwide e-mail campaign and to set up a zoo boycott through blogs and a Facebook page." “It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said in a statement. “Some of their comments … reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity.” Odd Mike how I don't see any reference to the Constitution in any of this. No one was thinking Constitutional rights when they opposed the promotion, they were thinking strictly of the zoo's religion foundation and they opposed that. The bottom line (the real bottom line) is this was, and always has been, about religion. Separation of church and state was intended to provide for religious freedom. The state could not prevent anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. It also means the state can not enforce or require a state sponsored religion upon anyone. This has been the basis of our Constitutional rights for over 200 years. Only recently has there been this increased intolerence to religion. And yes, Hollywood, I consider it a growing hysteria. Attempting to tie this promotion into some kind of Constitutional protection is illogical. It does not meet the criteria. Read the story at http://michiganmessenger.com/738/christmas-ornaments-student-free-speech-or-too-much-religion-in-school for another example of how interpretation of the Constitution has continued to slide towards prohibiting religion, not protecting it. Mike, I don't expect any kind of logical rebuttal from you. It's like your incessent "life begins at birth" retort. You obviously can't debate an issue, you merely repeat your opinion. I had said I was tired of debating with a concrete block, but since I had 45 mins to kill in a waiting room I figured I'd give you one last chance to actually debate the issue. I'd truly enjoy seeing you make an attempt to explain your position, but then, I'd like to see my 401 recover what it lost in just under 2 months as well... I'm not holding my breath on either count. On Dec 10, 3:12 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the bottom line is that the objection to this is still not anti > religion but pro constitution and the bill of rights . > > On Dec 9, 5:48 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Mike, > > > What ever. You go on believing it's our Constitutional right to be > > protected from ticket promotions. This thread is old and I'm tired of > > debating with a concrete block. > > > On Dec 9, 5:16 pm, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > a zoo that excepts tax payer money ! and while you may not be in > > > favor a separating of church and state it is still the law . > > > > On Dec 9, 1:15 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It was a promotional effort for two seasonal events.. it cut the cost > > > > of tickets to the people. This is why I used the term hysteria before, > > > > because that is what this is becoming. This isn't about forcing > > > > religion on anyone. This isn't about restricting your right to > > > > practice, or to not practice religion. Laws are not being established > > > > as a result of religion. Your freedoms are not affected by this. And > > > > no taxpayer money was being spent in the name of religion. It was a > > > > fucking promotion for a festive seasonal presentation and you are > > > > still defending the correctness of people for protesting it. > > > > > Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound suggesting that opposing > > > > a zoo and a museum from offering a promotion on the tickets is somehow > > > > being pro-Constitution, pro Bill of Rights? Next you'll be suggesting > > > > we should be boycotting any paper mills that produce paper used by > > > > churches to print their hymnals. > > > > > On Dec 9, 12:39 pm, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > and once again the zoo excepts tax payer money and the people who > > > > > complained were correct the Zoo should not have entered into an > > > > > agreement with the religious museum . the complaints were not anti > > > > > religious they were pro constitution and the bill of rights . > > > > > > On Dec 9, 12:24 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I know better than to try to do this with you, Mike, but despite my > > > > > > better judgement I will try. > > > > > > > The anti-religion comment was aimed at those people who contacted > > > > > > the > > > > > > zoo and complained. Their complaints had to do with the religious > > > > > > nature of the museum. They would not have complained if it was a > > > > > > museum of paper airplanes. So yeah, I consider them to be anti- > > > > > > religion. But that was a description of those who filed the > > > > > > complaint > > > > > > and really has nothing to do with the issue of the complaint itself. > > > > > > > Yes, you have made your position clear on separation of church and > > > > > > state, but again, that wasn’t what this was about. > > > > > > > So I ask you again.. HOW was taxpayer money being spent on religion > > > > > > when the zoo and the museum agreed to a joint promotion on > > > > > > discounted > > > > > > tickets for their seasonal events? > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:42 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > you brought up the anti religious comment not I . and i have made > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > position very clear on the mater of separating state and church . > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:37 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, at least you are consistent. As always, you can't answer > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > question so you run off on a tangent. > > > > > > > > > Answer the question or we'll take your failure to do so as an > > > > > > > > admission that it was a bogus accusation. > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:25 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > anti religious ? really when did anyone restrict someones > > > > > > > > > religion in > > > > > > > > > this mater ? > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 11:09 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, and.... ???? So if someone from the zoo has coffee > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > someone from the museum, is that spending taxpayer money on > > > > > > > > > > religion? > > > > > > > > > > Or, if the zoo and the museum decide to offer tickets to > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > respective seasonal events in a combo package, is that > > > > > > > > > > spending > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer money on religion? Careful now... if you say it > > > > > > > > > > is, then you > > > > > > > > > > must also cite where/how the zoo is spending money on the > > > > > > > > > > museum. But > > > > > > > > > > I'll help you... the zoo was not spending any money doing > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > promotion. It was a bogus charge by paranoid anti-religious > > > > > > > > > > idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:16 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > the Zoo is funded in part by tax payer money > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 10:14 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, how was taxpayer money being spent in this case? > > > > > > > > > > > > Both the museum > > > > > > > > > > > > and the zoo were offering to reduce ticket prices to > > > > > > > > > > > > their respective > > > > > > > > > > > > events if you buy them both together. That sounds like > > > > > > > > > > > > a win-win for > > > > > > > > > > > > the zoo, the museum and the taxpayers who wanted to see > > > > > > > > > > > > the events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sole basis for the complaint was the mere > > > > > > > > > > > > association of the zoo > > > > > > > > > > > > with the museum. How dare the zoo even recognize the > > > > > > > > > > > > existence of an > > > > > > > > > > > > organization that teaches creation. It had nothing to > > > > > > > > > > > > do with taxpayer > > > > > > > > > > > > money. It's pure paranoia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 3:25 am, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax payer money should not be spent on any religion > > > > > > > > > > > > > period . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 5:07 pm, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it's OK for taxpayer money to promote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution? It's not like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the theory of evolution is a proven fact either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both evolution and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creation are unproven theories yet you object to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only one where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer money is involved. Most people question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where we came from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and like it or not, there are two principal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theories; creation and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution. People should not be afraid of exploring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes this even more ridiculous is that all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they were doing was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offering a combo ticket to their respective events > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The Festival of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lights and the Christmas celebration, Bethlehem’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blessing. It wasn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like the zoo was endorsing the museum. It was two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seasonal events > > > > > > > > > > > > > > teaming up to make it cheaper for people to see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them both. The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > response to this was borderlines on anti-religious > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hysteria. And > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because of this hysterical reaction, and the zoo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caving into it, those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who wanted to see both events ended up paying more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 3:50 pm, mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i think it is a good idea ! tax payer money > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not be spent to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > promote a religious theory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:52 am, frankg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't say whether you thought this was a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good decision or not, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and if you do, why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:55 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some complained that the zoo, which receives > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public support through a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax levy, should not become involved with a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > private museum dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the teachings of the Bible’s Book of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Genesis. Others said a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific institution shouldn’t link itself > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a place that argues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > man once lived side by side with dinosaurs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:49 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more attacks on religion by the insane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leftists. no surprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 6:29 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zoo pulls Creation Museum promotion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Museum launched a joint > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > promotional deal last week to draw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attention to their holiday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attractions.http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081201/NEWS01/81201045 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It worked, but not the way zoo and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > museum officials had hoped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The zoo pulled out of the deal Monday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after receiving dozens of angry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calls and e-mails about the partnership, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which offered reduced prices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to anyone who bought tickets to the zoo’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Festival of Lights and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > museum’s Christmas celebration, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bethlehem’s Blessing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the protests echoed the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theme: the Creation Museum > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > promotes a religious point of view that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conflicts with the zoo’s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific mission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some complained that the zoo, which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receives public support through a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tax levy, should not become involved with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a private museum dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the teachings of the Bible’s > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
