BEST Newspaper editorial EVER!

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


I think you all are missing the finer points here.

Why do you need to raise admission by $390,000 a year to cover a $62,000 shortfall?


Maybe that is a question that belongs in the politics section?

The increase is needed to cover the cost of arena overruns!

[Conan71]

I see Cubs has graduated from posting here to posting editorials in the Beacon.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The Tulsa Zoo is also known for having a wonderful breeding program with other zoos.

The Tulsa Beacon will probably want to promote an abstinence program next.

We breed our handlers with other handlers...How strange....

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


I think you all are missing the finer points here.

Why do you need to raise admission by $390,000 a year to cover a $62,000 shortfall?


Maybe that is a question that belongs in the politics section?

The increase is needed to cover the cost of arena overruns!

I Heard it was to fund shift differtial overages at TPD......

[cks511]

VOTE NO!....okay okay...sorry.

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Sorry if I missed your sarcasm... but if you are serious and to those who are:

If that is the best editorial ever, you read very little.  It is barely even comprehensible.  It mashes cliches and uses buzz words out of context.  They didn't even put spaces between paragraphs - which for some reason are usually only on sentence.  Aside from that, premising the article on a $1 admission increase is a shallow method of bringing up this lame issue again.

Explain to me how the Zoo is busy converting all our precious Christian butterflied into horrible pagans?  

The elephant god is outside the elephant exhibit with a sign that says something on the order of "Elephants are highly valued by many cultures.  Some even worship variations of the elephant as a god."  

The Rain Forest is set in a Mayan temple complex.  Which, as you might know... is in the Rain Forest.  Thus, seeing monkeys and parrots flying around some zigzag pattern makes more sense than flying around a giant crucifix.

Neither of those things promotes any religion. It does not talk about their theology nor beliefs.  The rain forest uses the Mayan things as props at best - I did not even notice any religious symbols in it (are carved heads religious?).  Certainly I have no understanding of what beliefs it is trying to instill.  The Vishnu statue is as an example of how important elephants are to some cultures - again no mention of their pantheon of gods nor their belief structure.  A creationism exhibit serves no purpose BUT to illustrate a religious belief structure - one that actually goes against the mandate of an accredited zoo to educate.  

Not to mock the bible, but in what context would a similar Christian symbol fit into the zoo?  Maybe a note next to the snake exhibit explaining that they are evil?  Or a blurb for the bats explaining that they are birds and not really mammals.  Or explain why the rabbit in the zoo is not an ungulate (hence not chewing its cud).  Hey, next to the fossils we could explain that they were put there by god to test our faith.  Near the chimps we could proclaim that scientists have found hundreds of examples of hominids showing an evolution of man that were put there to tease our sense of reason. Near the fish tanks we could proclaim "whales are fish too!"  On the earthquake platform we could get rid of the stuff about tectonic plates and just say god smites people with Earthquakes when he is mad.  Instead of giving examples of genetic diversity and differences in evolution caused by population divides (ie. squirrels on opposite sides of the canyons) we could just simplify it by saying "god made 2 squirrels!"   The big round Earth as you enter the zoo should be made flat so as to have four corners.   Somewhere we should also explain that the blue sky is another ocean that god put above us.  We need to get some of those 4 legged insects, melting snails,  and 4 footed fowl the bible talks about to display.  Also need to get those really small mustard seeds so we can show they are the smallest of all seeds.  And to REALLY get people talking lets get some unicorns, satyrs , flying serpents and fire serpents for display.

Better yet, the entire zoo could be in a boat that is 450' x 75' with ~ 3 stories.  Then we could cram all the zoos animals into the 101,250 square feet and see if they can live for a couple months.  For those wondering, that's 2.4 acres of living space for 1500 different animals  (about the same space the elephants have for themselves currently).  We can truck the food and water in instead of trying to fit it aboard just so the exercise isn't silly.

Maybe ban women on their period from the zoo since they are unclean?  Require slaves to obey their masters.  Should we allow mixed cloth to be worn?  Closed on the Sabbath. What Bible teachings are appropriate to represent as science and which are just going too far?

Or we could do a similar venue for a Christian scene, have a picture of Jewish fisherman at the in front of the large aquarium with a sign that says "people have fished using nets for thousands of years." Would that satisfy you?

I doubt it.  Because you are clearly not interested in the Zoo as an educational place.  It is merely another venue to teach your religion and beliefs.  The notion of creationism is a faith based belief that has no place in secular education - you only believe it because it is your religious conviction.  "Biblical Science" is an oxymoron.  It is a religious text meant to convey a moral and ethical code, it was never meant to be a scientific book to be taken literally on all counts.

To treat the bible as a scientific code as well as a religious code belittles its value.  It is so clearly wrong on many notes(*see small text below)  that an attempt to defend it as wholly accurate is doomed to failure. An attempt at doing so weakens the teaching of Jesus - which you likely agree are far more important than the scientific notions.


* Even contradicting itself on many accounts including one of the pivotal moments: Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.")

If the bible can not get the last words of the Son of God correct, perhaps there are other subtle flaws.


Speaking of the bible... it's own teachings are against you.  First, and foremost:

quote:I am the lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, you shall have no other GODS before me.

No problem.  The god of Israel is your first god.  You may take Vishnu and whatever gods you find in the rain forest as your second and third gods.

But more earnestly, these graven images are not there to be worshiped.  They are representations in association with the animals for which they are displayed.  Even if you want to pretend these are religious icons trying to convince people of the righteousness of Hinduism, the Bible says nothing about quashing all other religions nor forbidding others from displaying their own graven images.  It does, however, have plenty to say about jealousy and complaining that others are given more than you.

In this instance, the items in question are doing you no harm.  Just like the laborer who complained at his coworkers full rate, you have been treated fairly EVEN IF other's have gotten a better deal than you.

I do not fault you for having faith, I envy you.  Blind faith would make everything so much easier.  But when your faith interferes with science education and my religious rights - then I have a problem with it.  If there was a legitimate argument that the Zoo was being used to teach Hinduism, I would have a problem with that too.  But comparing a statue of an elephant god with the teaching of creationism is ridiculous.

"Not to mock the bible..."

What part of the post didn't mock the bible?

[sgrizzle]

I would like to nominate today's editorial that states 2007 is only 99 years after 1907.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x
What part of the post didn't mock the bible?

None of it mocked the bible.  The book actually says all of those things.  Pointing out what the bible says is not inherently mocking.

The point of the post was to illustrate that the bible taken literally simply does not work as a scientific document.  Lest one were to believe the myriad of items I posted above.  If one has to explain away such a plethora of clear inaccuracies he is placed in the position of doubting every other item in the bible (if the language was not clear on those points, perhaps other seemingly clear points are misguided).

Thus, the choice becomes: defer on the erroneous scientific data in the bible and defend the moral relevancy of the word, or defend the clearly mistaken and cast doubt upon the entire institution.   Most religious people would prefer to admit that the world does not have four literally corners, but what was meant is that we should search far and wide for the love of our God.

So there it is, cast your stones.