Sad, isn't it? Unfortunately, we can't blame Bush for it. But it might inspire us to push for a decent educational system.

Unfortunantly we can't blame Bush for it? Good god man. I'm not religious, and it is easy for me to see that your rhetoric makes you a religious zealot as much as the ones who might support such IMAX censorship. Blindly following the liberal line as if it were your Jesus. If you took out the longer part of your comment, it would read "Sad, isn't it?" Yes, you are right, censorship is a sad and sorry affair; however, the hopes of crusade against Bush and republicans are not the issue. The issue is censorship. Do you understand now? I'm not saying you are less than able to understand things, but I am calling your bluff. You, my friend are religious. I hope it does inspire you to push for a decent educational system. Perhaps you'd like to post your idea of what that system is? Or will you wait until someone tells you?

Actually Rob, we *can* blame Bush for this; he has helped to foster a political climate where a small group of religious extremists are allowed to dictate what the rest of can do with our minds and bodies.

Mr. Anonymous, it's very hard to take you seriously when you won't even post a name; if you're so confident that you are moraly and intellectually superior to the rest of us poor mortals, why are you hiding your identity? Do you have a blog that you post your thoughts to? Why are you afraid to share more?

Mr. Anonymous is named Ken. This also doesn't change anything, now I have a label though. I'm not hiding, I just haven't posted it because I guess I care more about what's in the post. I'll post the name from now on. No I don't have my own blog.

I am not morally superior or intellectually superior to most people. If my confidence comes across that way, I make no apologies for it, but thanks for the compliments.

------^

The religious right, the group that Bush can depend on the most, is fast deciding what we can and cannot see or hear in all aspects of life. Now they have decided that we must not be allowed to view anything that purports life to have started billions of years ago, because it flies in the face of their insane belief that our planet is only 6 thou. yrs. old. They are succeeding in have some schools teach creationism. How do you deal with such ignorance?

The religious right, the group that Bush can depend on the most, is fast deciding what we can and cannot see or hear in all aspects of life. Now they have decided that we must not be allowed to view anything that purports life to have started billions of years ago, because it flies in the face of their insane belief that our planet is only 6 thou. yrs. old. They are succeeding in have some schools teach creationism. How do you deal with such ignorance?

"Christians" are an oppressed minority--at least according to them and the propaganda pumped out by the Right-wing Noise Machine--upon whom "Liberals" are forcing the theory of Evolution. Horrors!

If, as the "Christians" propose, a "God" created the universe, and placed some sentient being atop it as the pinnacle of perfection, it would not have created one as stupid as homo Americanus Reactionarius.

Evolution is a viable theory, there are some examples of it occuring in today's world. Creationism might feel good, but it serves no purpose in trying to figure out how things work. We all need to work together to insure that rational views are the ones we teach our children. I say more science and more math. Tuskless elephants is a good example of evolution today. Watch out also for the new moniker of creationism, namely Intelligent Design. Creationism should be left for later high school or college study. Practical things should be taught in primary schooling. My two cents on that issue.

>>Creationism should be left for later high school or college study.

Creationism should be left for Sunday school. And we can and should blame Bush for the atmosphere of ignorance he's fostered.

Jim, I am not 100% convinced you fundamentalists are 100% closed minded (although the jury is still out), but if you are any kind of representative (which all fundamentalists claim to be)...I have one suggestion for you. It's not even wrapped up in a whole lot of science books that you obviously choose to ignore. It's called spellcheck. Use it. Your arguments might be more persuasive if you sound intelligent, you maroon!

I am a scientist with a masters degree as well as a PhD in biology. It helps your argument with me when you reference other real scientists (like me) by name to support your case (And no, the Rev. Sun Young Moon doesn't count, nor does Doctor Phil.) This is called supporting your theory with evidence and I am 100% confident that your intelligent design idea (while a nice story) does not hold up to the scientific rigours like the Theory of Evolution. I am not saying it is completely worthless, you can discuss it Saturday or Sunday mornings in church...which is the appropriate forum for fairy tales.

"Uninformed by Design" has no business being taught in schools (public or private, for that matter) where we should be teaching our children real ideas that would help us catch up to the rest of the industrialized nations in level of education. Instead, we allow arguments about Sat/Sun morning issues to pollute the educatable minds of our youth. And Caesar fiddled on!

Hammer
Who said I was a fundamentalist? How about labeling me a terrorists too. Ive always admired those individuals that can't win an argument without slandering their opponent in one form or another. Your name calling shows what you are and how it effects your ability to think rationally.

In regard to Hammer's posting to Jim. Bigots' are defined as people who are intolerant of others because of their opinions or beliefs. You should seriously think of getting some professional help.

I read Hammers comments and they definatly are not that of a professional person. Debate intelligently without name calling. At least "act" intelligent.