As far as segregation of the church, sure it was common in the south, but it was also common for churches, both black and white to be at the front of the fight for desegregation. And do you honestly believe that Church policies were responsible for Apartheid? Talk about slander!

Environmentalists, crony capitalists, full out socialists, etc. All in bed together.

What I say is true. I live in Sweden. I have to pay $15 for a hamburger. I know first hand what life in their societies is like.

I like how even what the insurance companies do is the government's fault….you have such an even handed grasp of reality.

All to get you and your precious freedom.

I know what FPM says “left” is and it's a monsterous composite of everything bad….it doesn't really help you understand politics or what is going on.

“left” is just some vague boogeyman.

I am not a liberal, but in fact a conservative who has moderated largely out of discust for what appears to be the new attitude best exemplified by the spirit of Rush Limbaugh, the man with the audacity to refer to himself as “On loan from God” (like he was a prophet or something).

Also I am not one of “you people” who is pushing a one world socialist government. I think you need to turn it around and think of what triggered you to make such broad assumptions than go back and read Pregers article, than think about it again. You will see my point shortly.

In my post above to which you replied, I had chosen to frame the Conservative viewpoint here as it relates to the Religious Right for three reasons:

One is tit for tat – Preger uses it in his article to collect the liberal view into a single virulent figure to which he can then attack. And so it goes. This is why it was so easy for you to dump me into the convenient funnel that Preger created for you based on one hot button issue. Dont you think that is worth some reflection?

Personally I think people who consume this rhetoric, on both sides, need to grabbed by the scruff of their necks and forced to see how manipulative it can be and then go on a quest to rediscover independant objective thought.

Don't believe it? In addition to your own example think of this: Rush has an entire army of self described “ditto heads”. Thats what they call themselves, and if someone really considered the expression then they will understand what that implies.

Secondly – Because I get upset when people claim the religious high ground on issues but go on to ration their actions and then only selectively.

To paraphrase: Jesus did not say: “when you see a poor person determine wether they believe or not, are deserving of their condition, or judge whether they are lazy”. He simply said “feed the poor”.

When I listen to the conservative voice these days I hear the former and not the latter and I think this needs to change.

Third – Because the Conservative base so often defines itself this way. If you don't agree then explain why every election the Republican base tries to make mileage out of the Democrats typical support for abortion by appealing to the Christian church but then quickly tucks it away until the next election.

Oh btw the Ice core samples do show that CO2 levels lag warming periods. The explanation for this is that the Earth has an eccentricity in its orbit that repeats about every 100 thousand years which matches up very well with the historical records of ice ages and warming periods. The belief is that when the warming part of the cycle begins, the resulting depletion of permafrost releases CO2 and Methane which creates a positive feedback loop that accelerates the heating of the planet until the orbital wobble brings the planet to a point where the cooling process begins.

The reason this is so important is that it is still early in the heating part of the cycle so you would think that the CO2 level would not yet be that noticable but as the chart I linked earlier shows, CO2 levels are over fifty percent higher than they were at all of the prior peaks of the last 800 thousand years. The only thing that can account for the difference is man made output.

He became the head of the Human Genome project and the book discusses his views on how genetic makeup causes evolution and why this does not conflict with church beliefs but rather offers a fantastic opportunity to see and understand an aspect of God's work.

Otherwise, I believe the remainder of my comments are in true:

Though Copernicus published his work on the heliocentric model back in the 1543 and though there interest in his ideas it was never accepted or endorsed throughout the remainder of his life,

Galileo continued to work on the model and began to butt heads with the church around 1610 and in 1633 was forced to recant his work before the church, with the presumed alternative of being sent to prison.

It wasnt until Newton introduced his theory of gravitation late in the 1600's before evidence overwhelmed the opposition.

Ironic though isn't it? Copernicus first introduced the idea but it took about 150 years before it was accepted. This just furthers my point about how the conservative view lags the scientific view, sometimes for hundreds of years, or in fact thousands of years when it comes to the age of creation.

As far as the segregation of the church it was systemic throughout the south from the abolition until the civil rights act was passed in 1964.

South Africa was the same way until Aparthied was abolished, so I guess there you go.

No comment on the age of creation then?

It really is the most important one, as it shows how a literal interpretation of Genesis can exist and dominate the religious right's perspective for thousands of years and shows how entrenched a persons beliefs can be in the face of enormous evidence that contradicts.

Segregation of churches was

I disagree with that. Not every American deserves health insurance. Some people have the lot in life they've earned.

Copernicus, who put the sun at the center of the solar system, was a Catholic monk.

The knowledge that the Earth was round predates Christianity. Earths circumference was calculated by the Greeks well over 2000 years ago. it was a well known fact at that time. Please cite for me even one example of someone being put in chains for believing this.

I will grant you the evolution one, It was looked down on by religious people 100 years ago. But you are wrong about more then half of the christian church believes that the earth was created in 6 days. The Catholic church does not believe this.

The not allowing minorities to attend thing as just a slander. How many is “many”? It was mainstream churches that fought to end slavery and segregation.

Lets face it, you are the one with the sorry track record.

That said, I suppose that we should probably also note that there are those who just as well have an investment in discrediting the theory of global warming. If I recall correctly many of the scientists who have come forward with counter evidence, (less than 5% of all polled), are in fact connected to big energy companies so I guess we should blindly listen to them?

Here is something to consider:

The Conservative view (which I will call the Religious Right because it is so often how it identifies itself), of the world always seems to lag the scientific view:

500 years ago you could have been burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the center of the universe.

Claiming the world was round instead of flat would have had you in chains.

Less than a hundred years ago you would have been bounced from the congregation if you suggested that there was merit to evolutionary theory.

Less than 50 years ago many churches wouldnt allow a minority to attend service because I guess they were inferior or something,

At this very moment over half the Christian church still believes that the Earth was literally created in six days and is approximately 6000 years old.

Lets face it, this is a really sorry track record. I think until this group gets just one thing right, it would seem the best bet will always be agin rather than fir.

But, I suggest you do your own research (with an open mind) among MANY different sources and look at all sides–including their backup evidence before making your mind up.

The truth is that the government will only make things worse with more layers of bureaucracy and inefficiencies. Yes, the insurance companies have been getting away with murder because of twisted regulations that allowed them to become monopolies in their respective areas–but that is government's fault (not free enterprise). The right wants to OPEN up competition and force the marketplace to create efficiencies that will lower costs while expanding choice. We want competition across state lines, we want lawsuit reform (not to get rid of lawsuits–but to weed out frivolous ones and make the losers responsible for bringing them if they are obviously fraudulent), we want lower barriers to new business so there can be more competition.

The Democrat's bill will cost ALL of us (including those close to poverty like myself) thousands of dollars a year more and it won't even start to cover half of those who are not insured now. Please do some extensive research and open your mind to other possibilities. The truth is out there and it isn't what Congress has been telling us. I beg you to open your mind and seek the truth beyond what you see on MSNBC, CBS, ABC and Huffington Post. They will not give you all the facts…you need to find that out on your own by searching deeper.