100 for what

"""
The Italian scientist and oldest living Nobel laureate, Rita Levi-Montalcini, is celebrating her 100th birthday. Despite her age, she still works every day at the European Brain Research Institute which she founded in Rome. In 2004, the revered scientist intervened to defend the teaching of evolution in Italian schools when the then education minister wanted to remove it from school curricula. """

I still wait for someone to tell us how or why the origin of the species matters to our understanding of life ? ?

No one can prove what happened 10,000 years ago let alone 10,000,000 years. No one can disprove that everything was made within the last 10,000 years. No one can prove that we can see 10,000,000,000 light years into the past. On the other hand I can not disprove that we can see however far you seem to think that you can see.

In fact we have a hard time proving what happened yesterday, even if we have it on video ! !

Any one Can be a doctor quite successfuly without knowing where people came from. Anyone can be a vet without knowing where the critter came from. The point is IF you insist that we Have to teach evolution in school then you HAVE to agree that ALL the possibilities MUST be taught - otherwise get evolution OUT of the school along with all other references to the origin of everything and teach the kids what we DO know ! !

So Rita has lived for 100 years. That is good. And it is refreshing to know that she is still at work. But what for ? ? Has ANYthing that she learned been absolutely dependent on evolution ? ? How many hours of her 100 years of experience and knowledge would she have to give up if she gave up evolution ? ? Suppose she put 10,000 hours into it. Would her life be any different if we cut just that part out ? ?

Teach the kids to read and write. Teach them to add and subtract. Teach them how to build things. Teach them the things that we Know. And give them the freedom to work out their own interests.

Religion, TRUE religion, is for each person to choose what they want to believe (though I know that few really do alow their patrons that freedom) BUT school is manditory. OK, if you insist on that, then stick to what we know when we teach kids at school.

Artistix Esprexxion

Of course an “artist’s” freedom of expression can and must be curbed at times.
Freedom of expression can Not be argued or even discussed only at its point of expression. It must be discussed at the root from which it springs, the world view of the artist.

We All draw circles around what is good right pleasant pleasing proper acceptable lovely nice and what is not.

That there Are moral absolutes is Not in question. The question is not how big or how small should the circle be. The question is not should it encompass this area or that. The question Is ‘who gets to draw the circle’.
Right ?
Of course right ! !

That every human endevour is touched by the Absolute Universal Norm is Not in question. We have to be respectful of other peoples feelings or we prove that we are other than feeling human beings ourselves; something other than what we were made to be. Everyone expects good right pleasant pleasing proper acceptable lovely nice and rightly so. No one will Ever gain them at someone else’s expense ! You have to earn good right pleasant pleasing proper acceptable lovely nice yourself. OR have it freely and benevolently given to you. Being right And just are more important than someone’s feelings because there is an Absolute Universal Norm.

The circles that we draw Are Laws. Rules.

If you join a chess club, beyond any rules about who may or may not join and how or how you may not act while “attending” the club or functions thereof there Are the rules of the game. Without them chess is Not chess. Does our club play that a pawn that reaches the 8th rank can be exchanged for any piece that has been taken off of the board Or can one conceivably have 9 queens on the board, or any other piece that you want?

Therefore when the laws are broken the perpetrator is punished. Laws without equal and just punishment are not laws. Unless you can find a stand in you are dead meat because you broke the Absolute Universal Norm.

I don’t find anything wrong with you hurting my feelings over some religious practice. I don’t have any that are really worth my feelings.
But I will not give up God.

the circle of freedom

“ “ “ A film recently opened in Cairo has revived a controversy about the depiction of Copts in Egyptian drama.
The film, called One-Nil, tells the story of a Christian woman who is granted a divorce but cannot remarry because of the strict rules of the Egyptian Coptic Church.

She rejects a solution proposed by her lawyer that would allow her to divorce and get married again - convert to Islam - and instead conducts an illicit affair with the hero.

The rules of the Coptic Church prohibit its members from getting a divorce, with two exceptions: if one party proves adultery by the other or if one of the two parties converts to another religion.

The film is not the first of its kind to cause controversy.
About eight years ago a dispute raged when a TV drama series entitled Time of Roses depicted a Christian woman married to a Muslim man.

But it was another film entitled I Love Cinema … which was the most controversial. Its plot was considered by some to be critical of very religious Coptic Christians, who fast for about 200 days a year. The film was also criticised for shooting some of its scenes in a non-Coptic church although it was meant to depict a Coptic church.

"I cannot understand how an artistic work can be proscribed under the pretext of respect for the feelings of a few people. If we allowed ourselves to use respect for feelings to stop any artistic work, all forms of innovation and art would dry up," says Yusuf Sidhum, the editor of Watany newspaper.

The issue then is artistic freedom versus respect for the feelings of the few at a time charged with sectarian tension.” ” ”

May it be that a whole lot of “artistic expression” SHOULD dry up ?
Who but a few are creating the “Art” ?
The good editor seems to be saying that it is the few against the few without acknowledging that, that IS what he is doing. The issue Is AN artist decides to comment and use “artistic license” doing so against the feelings of an established group. ALSO there is what has become a non issue now a days it seems and that is respect of the young toward the old. The Coptic Church HAS been around for a long long time. Much Much longer than “Artistic expression” can claim to reach the masses – books, newspapers, movies, TV, Radio, Internet.

All of us draw circles. If said artist wants to draw a circle around the Whole world they DO need to recognize that there are already in existence a bunch of other circles. “I have to have MY movie show all over the globe ?” Politically there have been a few people who said the same thing and they have been roundly denounced, even by the very people who are claiming said “artistic license” ! !

As it happens Your Freedom stops six feet in front of MY nose !

TAKE NOTE - From there on in you have to get MY permission !

I bet everything that I have that the good editor would be VERY adamant about respect for feelings if some one were to punch him in the nose.

You say, “but that is not the same thing”

To which I reply

“Dry Up ! ! ! !”

dispicable speach police

“ “ “ Venezuelan beauty queen Dayana Mendoza visited the centre (at Guantanamo in Cuba) and wrote about it on the Miss Universe blog on 27 March.
Her remarks that she "didn't want to leave" the "calm and beautiful" place attracted some scathing reactions.
Her blog entry has now been removed, while a statement has been uploaded explaining the motives of her trip.
"We visited the Detainees camps and we saw the jails, where they shower, how they recreate themselves with movies, classes of art, books. It was very interesting."
She goes on to extol the virtues of the water around the bay - "soooo beautiful!" - and ends her entry: "I didn't want to leave, it was such a relaxing place, so calm and beautiful."
Her comments attracted plentiful news coverage and some ridicule from bloggers, one of whom exclaimed: "My God! Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity. This is horrendous."
The blog entry has now been removed from the Miss Universe website. ” ” ”

So has said blogger BEEN to Guantanamo her or his own self ? ?
So
as I asked already – has said blogger been there themself ??

I ask again …

Loooook what happens. Freedom of speech is Very Very politically policed to day as some of us have been saying for quite some time now; the person who has been there and seen it for her self is NOT allowed to express her view but some ________ blogger gets to express her or him self with the backing of who ever it was who took the comments off of the web page And most of the media ! ! ! ? !! ??? !

Would the comment been taken off if it had said that it is ugly and horrific and terrible and it should be wipped off the face of the globe and so on and on and on ? ? ? No of course not, it would have been haled as an other nail in the Bush coffin and it is wonderfull that we have an other BIG time Celeb who is just Soooooooooo politicalllly correct ! ! ! !

Again I ask has said motor mouth blogger Been to Cuba her or him self ? ? What EVER in the world gives motor mouth the right to silence some one whom HAS been there herself ?
IF motor mouth thinks that she or he has the Right to spout off (not having been there)
THEN the beauty queen has the right to tell it like she sees it (having been there) !

Who ever took the comment off the web has also committed a VERY reprehensible act ! !