Kansas and regional news

Kansas and regional news

Conservatives face full slate of opponents in elections

March 28, 2006

Advertisement

Conservatives on the State Board of Education up for re-election this year now face opponents in the primary and general elections.

The latest candidate to announce is Jack Wempe, of Lyons, a Democrat and former chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents. Wempe also is a former legislator and school superintendent.

Wempe will seek the seat now held by Ken Willard, a Hutchinson Republican who represents District 7, which includes all or parts of 20 south central counties.

"I've had concerns about the direction the board has been taking," Wempe said. "I've voiced concern about it. I've attended meetings about it. I've been encouraged to run. So I decided to do it."

Challengers welcome

Conservatives said they welcomed the challenge. And board opponents disgruntled by recent board decisions dealing with evolution, sex education teaching and other board controversies also welcomed news that there are a full slate of challengers.

Kansas Board of Education seats sometimes have had trouble attracting candidates.

"For those of us who are looking for a change, it's encouraging," said Boo Tyson, a Lawrence resident and executive director of the MAINstream Coalition. "It means we've got a shot at them (conservatives) in the primary and a shot at them in the general. If you're a moderate - Republican or Democrat - it's great."

Terms for four of the six conservatives on the 10-member board draw to a close this year.

Wempe's candidacy means three of the four conservatives will have opponents in both the primary and general elections. Conservative board member Iris Van Meter has said she would not run again.

Cindy Duckett, a conservative advocate in Wichita, took the news in stride.

"It's to be expected, really," Duckett said. "The things the board has been dealing with - sex ed, evolution, vouchers - are controversial. And any time you take on controversy, you're going to hear from the other side.

"Quite frankly, I think it's a good thing," she said. "I think it's healthy. Let's get the opinions out there, let's let the people speak, let's see what happens."

Duckett predicted at least two of the three conservative incumbents would retain their seats.

"I think Ken Willard will win. I think John Bacon will win," she said. "If anybody's vulnerable, it's probably Connie Morris, but she could pull it off. I wouldn't bet against her."

Morris, a conservative from St. Francis, will be opposed in the primary by Sally Cauble, a former elementary school teacher and a former member of the Liberal school board.

The winner will meet Democrat and former Garden City mayor Tim Cruz.

Bacon, a conservative from Olathe, will be opposed by Harry McDonald, a biology teacher at Blue Valley High School and a member of Kansas Citizens for Science board of directors, in the primary.

The winner will run against Don Weiss, an Olathe Democrat.

Wempe's background

Wempe was appointed to the Board of Regents in 1999 by then-Gov. Bill Graves. He served as vice chairman in 2001 and 2002; and chairman in 2003.

Wempe said he was "disappointed" in the state board's push to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution.

He declined comment on board decisions to require students to get their parents' permission before taking sex education, and to hire Bob Corkins as education commissioner despite Corkins' having no administrative or classroom experience.

"I'm trying not to get into too many specifics until after I find out what's going on in the trenches," Wempe said.

Wempe, 71, said he planned to visit each school district in District 7 before the Nov. 7 general election. He campaigned Monday in Hutchinson.

"I sense that there's a dissatisfaction with the direction the board is taking," Wempe said. "The problem is, this district is so big, I have no way of knowing what people are thinking 100 miles south of here. That's what I'm going to find out."

A former Little River school superintendent, Wempe served eight years in the Kansas House of Representatives.

Willard, a Republican from Hutchinson, spent six years on the Nickerson-South Hutchinson school board, including two years as vice president, one year as president. He has filed for re-election.

In the Aug. 1 GOP primary, Willard will be opposed by McPherson school board president Donna Viola.

Incumbent Janet Waugh, a Democrat from Kansas City, has filed for a third term. As yet, she has no declared opposition.

More interest

The filings mean that in 2006, there will be at least three primary races and at least four general-election races involving state board candidates.

In 2004, there were two primary races, one in the general. In 2002, there were five primaries, one in the general.

Bob Beatty, a political science professor at Washburn University, said the four-fold increase in school board races on the general election ballot likely signaled a long-anticipated change in voter sentiments.

"Kansans aren't happy with the image that's being projected for the state, whether it's evolution or gay marriage or the Fred Phelps protests," Beatty said.

"Now those aren't all State Board of Education issues, obviously, but they're pushing candidates to run," he said. "And what candidates are finding out is that Kansans love Kansas; they think this is a great state - a great state that's headed in the wrong direction. It's an undercurrent that I think is going to show itself in a lot of races this year."

Comments

xenophonschild 9 years ago

It's taken a while, but, finally, most average citizens of our wonderful state realize that FCCR's (fundamentalist Christian conservative Republicans) are a menace to society. Let's retire them from public discourse, so they can wait for their dead Galilean to return without mucking up Kansas.

willie_wildcat 9 years ago

Hopefully this is the year Brownback goes bye bye... He is a menace to Kansas and fits the bill of a FCCR as xenophonschild correctly put it.

craigers 9 years ago

xenophonschild, it is risen Savior, not dead Galiliean. They never found the body. The real menance to society is the "If it feels good, do it" crowd. Those dang fundamenalists, how dare they?

local_support 9 years ago

Extremists on both sides are the true danger to society.

And it's spelled fundamentalists.

craigers 9 years ago

I'm so sorry local_support. Please forgive me for misspellling things on the interternets. Thank you oh wise one. I always love the people that start posting on the boards and then tell people they didn't spell something right. I didn't know we had to proofread, it's a blog, who really cares? Oh and the spelling errors are just for you.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

Newsline, Jerusalem.

This just in. Archaeologists in Israel have come across a stone tomb holding the remains of a 33-year-old carpenter. Said scientist Lev Ishmail "We've known about this tomb for a long time. It's just that no one ever looked behind the big rock in the back."

Asked to comment, Pope Benedict declared, "Easter is canceled this year. Turns out we're all still Jews."

Jamesaust 9 years ago

I would remind readers that candidates do not run an election campaign for free. One need not be a resident in the BOE districts to provide campaign contributions to the candidates. It is not enough to write a letter to the editor or mutter over your morning coffee. Please pick the candidate for either the general election or the GOP primary (or both) that best addresses your concerns and give generously.

badger 9 years ago

craigers - there's a lot of bodies they never found. That doesn't prove Jimmy Hoffa is the Risen Saviour any more than it proves Jesus Christ was. You know and I know that what makes Christianity what it is has a lot less to do with whether they found the body than with what he said while he was alive. Just a point of semantics.

Thing is, there's an "If it feels good, do it" crowd among fundamentalists, too. They're the ones out there saying, "My faith is the right faith, so it should be taught in public schools to prevent the decline of society into values my faith doesn't agree with." They're saying, "Gay marriage makes me uncomfortable because my god says it's wrong, so it should be illegal." They're basing things just as much on what "feels good" or "feels bad" to them as anyone else is.

They talk about the need for faith in public schools. How we need prayer and Bible readings back and the Ten Commandments on publicly funded property my tax dollars pay for, but what if I wanted to teach my faith and have it represented equally? What if I wanted to teach the children in public school (after their daily Bible reading, of course) that Yahweh is but one of many gods and goddesses people choose to worship, that he has no special supremacy? What if I wanted to use public schools to teach the children who attend your church about casting spells, invoking goddesses, celebrating the seasons with ritual magic? What if I gave them the central doctrine of my faith, which is that there is no act performed as an act of love that is immoral or wrong, and that if two or three or five people wish to marry and commit to one another and be a family, their shared love is a joy in the eyes of my gods?

These same people scream bloody murder when a fiction fantasy book that talks about wizardry (e.g. bannings and protests about Harry Potter) dares to enter the public school system because they don't agree with the ideas behind it, but are outraged and incensed when I object to them teaching things that are in direct opposition to my own personal faith. Somehow, they seem to feel their Christianity means that what they believe is 'right' no matter how many other people hold different beliefs.

That's fine thinking for a theocracy, which this isn't. I believe that teaching about faith and spirituality in appropriate venues is an important part of rebuilding a balanced and sensible society. Two things, though:

  1. A publicly funded school paid for with tax dollars isn't that appropriate venue.
  2. An increase in faith and spirituality doesn't necessarily guarantee that all that faith will be in Christ.

craigers 9 years ago

Badger, I disagree with you and the importance of finding the body. If they did then they invalidate the things he said and the promises he made. Coming back for His children, that he would die and then be raised fromt he dead. Many spiritual gifts that have been given to us through Christ as spoke of in Ephesians came because of His death and resurrection. Not just the teaching that came with it. You can't compare Hoffa and Christ at all. Hoffa never promised to die and then in three days rise again. The risen savior is what makes Christianity completely different from any other form of belief on the earth. We preach of a Savior that is alive as we speak, not as one who died and did great things while he is here. I don't think you are seeing this because you approach it with a background of Christ being a great man and taught with great wisdom. I know you see Christ as one who taught what he lived and was a great leader and philosopher but to me where he is my risen Savior, the fact that the body was never found proves His authenticity and the fact that He is still alive.

badger 9 years ago

craigers - so if they found a body that archaeologists said was highly likely to be that of Jesus Christ, with strong evidence that it was stolen and moved to a secret location to safeguard it for his promised return, you'd stop being a Christian? It would invalidate the entirety of your faith? I don't believe that.

My point is that you're not a Christian because they never found a dead man's body. The presence or absence of the body itself is peripheral, essentially a matter of detail. You're a Christian because of what that lack of a body symbolizes to you personally, its promise of faith and redemption.

There was an Antonio Banderas movie called (I think) "The Body" a few years back, based in the idea of how it would challenge faith if a body that could be Christ's was found. All in all, not a bad movie and an interesting thing to consider. Would you really leave your faith if they found it, or are the tenets of it themselves so central to your life that you would not?

xenophonschild 9 years ago

Jesus was not god; he was an illegitimate Galilean peasant who managed to get himself executed two thousand years ago. In our era of relativity and quantum physics, no rational person should believe the mythologies and superstitious drivel Western civilization has worked to escape for the last thousand years.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

Q: What did Christ say as he was being nailed to the cross?

A: OOOWWWWWWWEEEE. Not the hands, not the hands, AAAAHHHHH.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

Or was it, "Peter, I can see your house from here!"

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

"...the fact that the body was never found proves His authenticity and the fact that He is still alive."

And gettin' pretty ripe by now, I would imagine.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

Catholics cross themselves because Christ was crucified. Just think of what Catholics would be required to do if...

Christ was given the electric chair.

Christ was stoned to death.

Christ was given a lethal injection.

Christ was hanged by the neck.

badger 9 years ago

xenophonschild - and yet faith is a comfort to so very many people. Funny, that.

It works for some of us, whether you respect that or not. My faith is a big part of what personal happiness I've found in this world. Craigers' faith and his willingness to discuss it are a large part of why I respect him as I do. I don't think faith and spirituality are silly or stupid, honestly. They're just ways of getting through the dark times in our lives, really, things that help us feel not so alone in a very large and often unfriendly universe. My faith means that when I feel troubled, I feel like I'm not dealing with whatever it is without reserves or support.

I hope that you, yourself, also have something in which you believe that helps you find happiness.

Sandman 9 years ago

Word count:

The adjective "conservative" appears 11 times in this article (including the title).

The word "liberal" appears once (referring to the town, not the political leaning).

Once again, just like with Bob Corkins -- the LJW labels conservatives but does not label liberals.

craigers 9 years ago

Holygrail, I disagree that the sacrafice that Christ made disolves us of our personal responsibility for our sins. The bible shows that none of us are perfect and that the heart is what matters. In Galatians God tells us that he is not mocked and that whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. This shows us that if a man claims to convert to Christianity and then his actions completely embody something else then I would question the conversion. The matter of Christianity is a conversion of the heart, which is where most of our choices come from. We follow what is in our heart. If we are cold and lonely, we tend to not associate with people and when we do we are abrupt and hard to get along with. But if you are a true Christian/believer then your heart is full of love and compassion and when you act in love, there should be no sin. The bible speaks of two different men, the spirit man and the natural man. If we are living by the spirit(Christ in us), and Christ can not sin, then we will not have the sinful problem. See the problem is that Christians continue to sometime let their natural man win out and I admit that too, so sin can cause problems. That is why Paul writes in Romans about the constant battle between the spirit man and the natural man. People think that Christians aren't suppose to sin, but we do. The difference is that we see our actions as sinful, repent, and try to improve with Christ helping us.

The point of God sending His Son doesn't disturb me as much as compells me to get to know somebody that would give up their son for me. He sent His Son to save all of mankind and then He would raise Him from the dead. It is because of that death that I can pray to God and not expect to be cut down right during my prayer by God. I see it as an extreme showing of love not perverseness.

Badger, your points on finding the body would be really troubling. Based on what I have seen in my own spiritual life I would definitely not forsake my faith because of the body, but it would lead me to ask many more questions. It would be really tough. I don't think this will happen but it is very interesting to think about.

xenophonschild 9 years ago

Religion is a crutch. People use it when they can't, or won't, face the realities of life. Christianity, in its early form, was an extremely attractive religion, particularly for the lower classes - mostly slaves - whose lives were more grueling and hopeless than most of us can imagine. Christianity offered them the prospect of eternal happiness after death; something most of them could never hope to approach in life.

But, what so few understand, is that Christianity was also an amalgm, a creation of bits and pieces of all the old pagan religions that squatted around the Mediterreanean. It was fortunate for the young religion that Paul, the mysogonist/pedophile who essentially created Christianity, was very well-educated, and allowed the early Church great fluidity and flexibility about adopting pagan rituals and holidays.

At the end of the day, all the old sky-god religions are obsolete. They are no longer necessary; in fact, they are - particularly Islam - impediments to the growth of secular thought. Secular knowledge is where we can hope for our best glimpse of God; not the old mythological superstitions.

blogista 9 years ago

craigers - "It works for some of us, whether you respect that or not. My faith is a big part of what personal happiness I've found in this world."

I respect that. One thing that many Christians don't realize is that my respect for your religious faith is so strong I couldn't imagine a Constitution that wouldn't protect your faith.

I'm afraid the whole point of this discussion is being missed. The separation of church and state is crucial for your continued freedom to worship as you please.

As badger put so well above, "what if I wanted to teach my faith and have it represented equally? What if I wanted to teach the children in public school (after their daily Bible reading, of course) that Yahweh is but one of many gods and goddesses people choose to worship, that he has no special supremacy?..."

The point is, if public school were to allow any religion, any religion at all, it would need to allow all religions. This would present a major major dillemna for Christians, wouldn't it?

As a thought experiment, let's imagine that by some "miracle", Christianity was exclusively granted the right to be presented religiously in public schools. The question then becomes "WHICH CHRISTIANITY"? The sheer variety and scope of beliefs within Christianity alone is mind-boggling. How would you react if you were Catholic or Presbytarian but your local school board decided that Mormonism was the prevailing world-view? Or Judaism, even better. I can just see the reaction on your face when your daughter's 3rd grade teacher insists that Jesus was "a prophet, not the son of God, and he did not rise from the dead."

How would you guard against that unless only your religion was allowed to be espoused? Again, this is the point. The way for you to protect your rights is to protect everybody's rights. Believers and non. You have a church, and a Bible, and no one can stop you from using them.

The only place for an education free from any religious warring is currently the public school system.

You should be thrilled by that fact.

badger 9 years ago

xenophonschild:

religion =/= faith. Not all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, pagans, Buddhists or what-have-you are religious, and not all of them have faith. It's a Venn diagram sort of thing. If you don't get that, then I'm afraid we can't have any sort of meaningful discussion about spirituality.

So, what about me? Am I exempt from your ramblings about myth and superstition because I don't follow one of those 'old sky-god religions'? I got no sky gods at all in my practices of worship. Am I ok then, because I'm more geared towards those old pagan religions that squatted not around the Mediterranean but around the British Isles?

You seem to have a solid hatred for religion. I don't get that, but you're living your path and I hope it brings you the things you need. I've tried to understand aggressive evangelical fundamentalist atheism, but I just can't get past the part of any fundamentalist belief system where for you to be right, everyone else has to be wrong and you consistently have to point out everyone else's wrongness.

craigers - if them finding the body wouldn't automatically invalidate your Christianity, then my point is proven that it's not just about them not finding it, but about the things the man said and what his death represents personally to you.

I'd have been very surprised if you'd told me your faith could be broken that easily. Of course it would raise questions, in anyone not so blinded by dogma that questions are impossible. But it shouldn't just cancel the whole system.

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Actually, yourworst, Catholic's don't cross themselves because Christ was crucified. They cross themselves out of tradition. In the way olden days, when Christianity was illegal (after Christ's time, during the Roman Empire at some point, I believe) Christians crossed themselves as a secret sign/password to get into the houses that were used as underground churches to celebrate the Mass. The Sign of the Cross has been retained in large part to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and possible martyrdom of those who had the guts to continue practicing Christianity when it was illegal.

That being said, I've actually, as a Catholic, never really considered the issue of whether Jesus' body was ever/will ever be found. It's not an issue to me, which is the point that I think badger is trying to make. I've got enough concerns with the way fundamentalist Christians (including the Church) "behave" these days to worry about that I don't let one old, dead, possibly really decomposed earthly vessel bother me that much.

xenophonschild 9 years ago

Badger: Secular thought and knowledge comes first. Period. The old dogmas and theologies impede secular thought. There's nothing wrong with spirituality; in fact, I can't imagine a world without it. But it must be based on an awe and respect for just how truly sublime the real God of the universe is, not some man-made, pathetic recreation of the original. All we know about God at the moment is that It (not a he or a she) is an abstraction that controls matter though natural physical laws.

I am very much opposed to religions. The irony is, my family (on my mother's side) was once "Defenders of the Faith," (they were Stuart Catholics), while, on my father's side, members of our clan were hanged in front of their village in Leitrim by English troops as a warning to others not to hide priests. I'm thankful we don't have such rigorous separation of church/state issues today, although the Chief Cowboy Idiot and his minions continue to do all they can to blur the distinctions.

Another thing, the moral tenets of Christianity are perhaps the noblest sentiments of our civilization. I have no argument or problems with the morality of Christianity; it is the dogma and theology that sour the drink. I'll spare you my thoughts on the moral tenents of Judiasm and Islam.

bankboy119 9 years ago

xeno,

Your understanding of Christianity shows your ignorance in the matter.

"But, what so few understand, is that Christianity was also an amalgm, a creation of bits and pieces of all the old pagan religions that squatted around the Mediterreanean."

Wrong. Christianity is based exclusively on Judaism, which you could try to argue is a combination of "old pagan religions," but you would be wrong again. The stories in the Bible that I am going to assume you are referencing, since you provided no specific ones, are about Noah and the Flood and Jacob wrestling with God. Some claim that the story of Noah is the same as the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story of Jacob wrestling with God would be the same as the story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

As to the flood story, many tribes have a story of a world wide flood that took place. These tribes are anywhere from the Mediterranean to South America to India to Africa. It is hard to believe that the story of the flood has no truth to it when, if I remember correctly, over 100 tribes from all over the globe have a flood story. With this being the case there are going to be accounts that are more true than the others. That being said, let's go a different route real quick okay?

What religions can we 100% disprove today?

  1. Islam- The Koran says that Jesus was a prophet and that Muhammed was the final prophet. If Jesus had been just a prophet he would not have been the Son of God as He had claimed. Do we know that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God? Yes, it is recorded countless times and the record of his death is that he was a blasphemer. If he was a blasphemer then he deserved his death. If he was telling the truth then he was not just a prophet and in fact was the Son of God. Therefore, Islam cannot have the "right" answer.

  2. Polytheistic religions that claim their gods live on this world or are objects in this world. Quetzecoatl is gone. Egyptian gods are gone. Greek gods are gone. Roman gods, gone as well. Native American gods, gone. Hinduism, the earth is not on the back of an animal on the back of another etc until we are riding atop a snake in the ocean. I am not familiar with Babylonian gods so I'll leave them be for this.

bankboy119 9 years ago

Okay now that we've knocked out most of the Americas, Africa, India, and some of Europe let's consider what that leaves us. Back then we had those that believed in Yaweh(Jews) and those that were polytheistic(Babylonians.) There are many similarities, and understandably so because they came out of the same region.

From these 2 "similar" religions, which has a following today? Judaism, that turned into Christianity, which it says that the Savior would come. Which of these 2 has specific promises/prophecies that have come true? Judaism/Christianity. Which religion has the Savior that fulfilled more than 300 prophecies? Christianity. Pretty simple to me.

I know there are many more arguments in many different directions to take but that's about all I can fit on here.

bankboy119 9 years ago

"In our era of relativity and quantum physics, no rational person should believe the mythologies and superstitious drivel Western civilization has worked to escape for the last thousand years."

So BANG we're all here great. In saying that, there is no good, no evil, just us people who, for the most part, have stopped flinging poo and are walking upright. This being the case, who are you to tell me what laws I have to live under? Why do we have laws in the first place? It's all relative right? If it is all relative there is no reason to try and work to what is "good" and stop people from being "bad." There is no good or bad right?

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

spanky, don't be so scared. Millions of years of natural selection have made us very tame, sociable creatures. I needn't point out yet again the crimes committed by the christian faithful (in our own little Larry-ville, in fact, with the carpenter and his smothered wife).

Also, the Raisch-Mangelsdorf Mid America Nazarene murder comes to mind. BTK was an upright member of his Lutheran church.

Don't be such a p##ssy, spankboy.

Godot 9 years ago

Will someone please cite the parts of the BOE science standards that 1) require or even encourage the teaching of creationism and 2) even mention Christianity or require that Christian doctrines be taught.

Please.

badger 9 years ago

xeno said: "Secular thought and knowledge comes first. Period. The old dogmas and theologies impede secular thought. There's nothing wrong with spirituality; in fact, I can't imagine a world without it. But it must be based on an awe and respect for just how truly sublime the real God of the universe is, not some man-made, pathetic recreation of the original. All we know about God at the moment is that It (not a he or a she) is an abstraction that controls matter though natural physical laws."

Well, golly, thanks for clearing that up.

Between you and bankboy, there, I'm all straightened out and won't have to actually do any thinking of my own! I can free up all that silly meditation time and all that silly time I was using for introspective thought, and go drink beer! Hooray beer!

I just lack the arrogance required to dictate that the dogma of secular knowledge is primary to all other dogmas, and to tell other people what their spirituality must be based in. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I just can't bring myself to accept that level of secular fundamentalism as a particularly relevant life option for me. Nice to know about your family history, though. They sound like fine upstanding folk. Well, probably fine downlying folk at this point, given burial traditions and all.

Bankboy?

Yeah, not touching that with a ten-foot pole. Circular logic makes me dizzy.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

"Will someone please cite the parts of the BOE science standards that 1) require or even encourage the teaching of creationism and 2) even mention Christianity or require that Christian doctrines be taught."

This is a red herring, Godot, and you know it. The KBOE conservatives deliberately left out mention of creationism and christian doctrine because of the obvious church-state conflicts that had already been decided.

Let me ask you some questions. Why is evolution singled out for "questioning", and why do you think they want to change the definition of science to include supernatural explanations?

Do you deny Abrams et al. did this to open the door for teaching creationism in public school science class? Answer truthfully now, Godot. God is watching.

yourworstnightmare 9 years ago

For the last 400 years, western civilization has been guided by scientific rationalism, also called the Enlightenment. Religion did indeed predominate before that, but it was Enlightenment thinking which brought us wealth, health, capitalism, and democracy. One need only to look to Islamic society to witness a modern culture guided by religion.

We very well may return to a religiously-guided culture. I just hope that by that time all weapons of mass destruction will be non-functional, because scientific technology and religious government would be a bad mix. There are signs that we might be heading back to religious governance.

xenophonschild 9 years ago

bankboy119: Will Durant, the Tacitus of our era, in "Caesar & Christ," : "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church; the Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity; the Last Judgment, and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the Mother and Child, and the mystic theosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find its exemplars and its source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millennarianism, the "ages of the world," the "final conflagration," the dualism of Satan and God, of Darkness and Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the "Light shining in the darkness, and the darkness had never put it out." The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world."

I hope this will satisfy any concerns you have about the origins of Christianity.

Worstnightmare, Abrams is a sleazo. All his public comments sound proper, but he is a trifle disingenuous. He follows the advice of the "wedge" people, those who seek to create controversy about evolution where there is none, then "teach the controversy." What they want is to inject their faith into the teaching of science. It is our job to resist them; to keep them out of public schools.

I'm out of here; on to Louise's West to snort down tomato schooners!

james bush 9 years ago

Bunch of unholy evil-doers here and now they are cursed!!

craigers 9 years ago

Blogista, I am thrilled that you believe that all faiths and religions should be treated equally. I am sure that the quote you have from me came from some other thread so it caught me a little off guard. However, if you have been watching other threads then you should see that I am very anchored in my faith and have said before that we should teach them all. I understand that it opens up all religions to scrutiny but what believer would I be if I forced my beliefs on others? It must be a choice, an individual choice to follow Jesus. I saw exposure to all the religions would be better than no exposure at all.

Badger, thanks again for a meaningful discussion. When I thought about people finding the body, I didn't really considered everything else that had happened in my life that coincides with my faith in Christ, so my first answer was a little short-sighted. Thanks for affirming my beliefs for me again and realizing that I have more proof for myself than historians not finding his body.

badger 9 years ago

craigers -

Ironically, the quote blogista attributes to you came from my 12:09 post.

Thank you as well for interesting discussion. I always get something positive out of discussing faith and spirituality with you.

Godot 9 years ago

YWN, if you call taking a document for what it says at face value a red herring, then I am guilty. The proof is there. Anyone reading that document without having heard the misinformation and the truly disingenuous (how I hate that word) arguments against it from the dogmatic evolutionists would never infer that the science standards suggest teaching that life has a supernatural source, or that they promote any particular religon.

The standards make a statement to the educators, not the students, about the argument between evolution and intelligent design. It is a recognition of a fact, that in Kansas, there is this argument, and that it is possible this discussion will come up. The standards do not require that intelligent design be taught, or that it even be mentioned, in the classroom. They DO do require that evolution be taught.

And there is absolutely no, nada, zero, mention of creationism, or of religion, other than to instruct teachers not to denigrate children for their religious beliefs.

Perhaps that part about not denigrating religion, about being respectful and tolerant of others' religions and cultures, is what really bothers you.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 12 months ago

Godot,

Apparently you don't mind being dishonest in front of your god. If you are naive enought to truly believe that Abrams and the KBOE do not have ulterior motives and that the science standards should be taken at face value, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Although it would explain why you support Bush-bag and necon republicans. Only extreme ignorance or deceptive malice could explain it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.