Charles is now mocking Creationists again. he views them as an enemy. I don’t subscribe to their views, but they are my allies. Charles focuses on people who are no threat.
And Now, the International Anti-Darwin Essay Contest
Weird | Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:03:57 pm PST
We do have some LGF readers who are creationists, so we would be remiss if we didn’t bring to your attention a chance to win a prize of 100,000 new Turkish lira (about $63,191.14 US at current exchange rates), in a scientific essay contest being held by Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar): WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION INVALID?
The competitors of the competition “Why Is the Theory of Evolution Invalid?” held by Science Research Foundation had some righteous demands, stating that given the too many dilemmas of Darwinism, 15 pages is too short for their essays and that the time is inadequate.
Upon these requests, some changes have been made on the rules of the competition and the GREAT PRIZE IS INCREASED. Entries which will be hand-written on A4 paper will NOT EXCEED 60 PAGES IN LENGTH AND NOT BE LESS THAN 30 PAGES.
The competition will include two stages. In this first stage of the competition, the prize of the winning contestant is increased to 25,000 YTL. Therunner-up will receive 15,000 YTL and the third prize-winning contestant will receive 10,000 YTL.
In the second stage of the competition, the winning contestant will receive a prize of 100,000 YTL, the runner-up 50,000 YTL and the third prize-winning contestant 25,000 YTL.
In the first stage of the competition, contestants will send to our foundation their essays containing comprehensive and convincing information on the subject of all the Darwinist dilemmas that prove the invalidity of evolution, of the kind summarized below. The first 1000 entries received will be considered.
The contestants will send their theses to the following address of the foundation by mail: Çakırağa mah. Katip Müslihittin sok. Sağlam İşhanı No.3 D.12-13 Aksaray/İstanbul. The last day to receive the essays is extended until 18 October 2009.
In the second stage of the contest, the scientific essays reaching our foundation will be evaluated by academicians who are experts on the subject and 100 contestants will be entitled to take part in the final.
The final competition will be held on 6 December 2009, Sunday at a location which will be announced later with the participation of the 100 contestants that are selected by the jury.
The contestants will be asked to answer a test consisting of 80 questions.
The winners will receive their checks at an award ceremony on 28 December 2009.
The purpose of this competition is to raise young people’s awareness of Darwinism, which has inflicted immense damage on mankind and to put them on their guard against this terrible fraud in science.
Old-time creationist huckstering at its best, with a Turkish flair.
Oktar proceeds to offer a long laundry list of anti-evolution talking points, helpful suggestions to the contestants about areas on which they should focus their research; a little intelligent design here, some young earth creationism there, irreducible complexity and the second law of thermodynamics, etc., ad nauseam. Ending with point #17, with which I dare you to argue:
(17) The fact that we only have experience of an image of matter totally demolishes Darwinist philosophy…
One reality scientifically proven in our century is that we never have direct experience of the external original of matter. Electric signals reach us by way of our senses, and the image that forms for us in our brains consists solely of these signals. But we see highly colored, vivid, active, three-dimensional and perfectly sharp images, hear perfectly clear sounds and perceive a flawless outside world. But all these are merely perceptions. It is the soul bestowed on human beings by Allah (God) that perceives, sees and hears them, that understands, thinks, rejoices and yearns. This great reality has totally discredited the materialist and Darwinist mindset, which claims that everything consists of matter.
(Hat tip: Killgore.)
I f you notice he mentions this mockingly. he’s trying to clown creationists. Look who gets a hat tip:Killgore Trout. Charles keeps exposing his anti-Faith view while his Rasputin (Killgore Trout)’s shows off his power at LGF, he is Nancy’s right hand.
Tags: Charles Johnson, News, Politics
Blow me CJ
It is interesting…. he banned folks for noting that the nazis were BIG fans of Darwin and many of their experiments were heavily influenced by Darwin’s line of thinking….
And yet, here he is trying to suggest that those who think evolution is wrong are REALLY just in league with the terrorists… after all, we Christians have the same mode of thinking as the Turkish islamic hordes!
Chuck hates Christians and the world needs to wake up to it.
He’s an ugly, hateful man.
Charles and Killgore are now focused on Religious Christan and Jews. They post lest about Islamic Jihadism and more percieved enemies. If it’s not the VB, its the NP, Social Conservatives. or Creationists
Personally, I’m an evolutionist, however, the point #17 is basically a “guilty by association” argument.
I have no dog in the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument. I don’t care how we got here. However mocking someone and equating them as a threat because of their idea the origins of life is wrong. Creationists aren’t a threat.
Hey Redwater, maybe you and I could get into some FRIENDLY debate sometime..I would love to converse with you with LOTS of mutual respect being the emphasis of the conversation..
For now though, I’m off to slumber. I took a Benadryl and it’s kickin’ in.
Good night Warriors. Thank you for all you do and G-d bless as you do…
tuffy
Goodnight tuffy!
Rodan…. why on earth do we have to worry about islamic terrorists? After all, the REAL threat is these social conservatives wanting to have their christian values and teaching creation to children….. that’s WAY more damaging than flying a few airliners into the WTC!!!11!1!11eleventy!!
LanceKates,
That’s Nancy and her LGF cultists thinking. You nailed it! That’s how they view that issue. She/he gives orders and the enforcers like Sharmuta and Killgore Trout rat out who disagrees.
[...] Read the rest of this superb post right here [...]
Charles Johnson said,
Wait, wait, wait, lemme see if I understand this correctly: he’s not actually banned all the creationists from LGF by now?
I guess he needs a token handful so that he can claim he’s not against diverse views at LGF.
RE post #2, Lance:
I don’t mind so much that Johnson supports Evolution but that he’s so hypocritical and rude about it, as well as other things.
Johnson does not mind playing the “guilt by association” game against his opponents (e.g., equating Creationist Christians to violent Islamic Jihadists, or European, anti-Immigration parties to Neo-Nazis)-
But heaven forbid you point out that people who hold some of his views also have some unsavory backgrounds themselves, and he gets upset.
Your comments also remind me of this:
Atheopathy vs Science: Refuting New Scientist’s agitprop about evolution
My mistake; the link I gave above takes you to the site’s home page, when what I was trying to do was link to this particular web page; I hope this link does the trick:
Atheopathy vs Science: Refuting New Scientist’s agitprop about evolution
It escapes Charles’ notice as well as his sychophants that modern science was primarily founded by devout Christians, such as Kepler, and Newton. Kepler wrote Christian Hymns, more that I few if I remember. Newton would now days be considered a fanatical Christian. Didn’t seem to hurt their scientific thinking to believe in a Creator, and in those days they were all young earth creationists. Newton was such a towering intellect that they buried Darwin next to him as a way to try and pretend that Darwin was of the stature of Newton, which he was not, not even close. Darwinism is preposterous in so many ways. How is it that the force to survive and competition was so fierce among animals that for instance a fish slowly changes to have nubs instead of fins then slowly gets legs from those nubs. All the while in the million years of changing it is neither a good fish nor a good amphib. What happened to the fierce competion? All the other animals stand back while it takes its time to evolve? Stupid theory for children afraid of God.
Charles has explained that believing in a Creator and accepting evolution are not mutually exclusive.
That said, I don’t understand his fanatic hatred of those who question evolution (and there is an important difference between adaptation and one species changing into another). I also don’t understand all the energy expended on the horrors of allowing alternate theories into a science classroom, especially considering the tiny percentage of time it takes up in the entire biology/science curriculum. Science should be about asking questions and defending evidence. If teachers can’t answer the questions evolution skeptics raise, isn’t that a greater concern?
I can’t agree that he’s anti-Christian because he does allow a lot of Christian discussion, but I do agree that there seems to be an undercurrent of hostility.
I support the theory of evolution. I don’t believe in creationism. But LGF seems to have taken the subject to an obsession.
One thing about Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, a lot of people don’t know this – in one of the first editions Darwin had written – emphasized – that his theory was just that – a theory. He wrote that he could be proven wrong in some instances, but as a whole, he felt his theory was on target.
Today, many people seem to think if they just disprove one form of evolution, they’ve disproved them all. That isn’t the case, even by Darwin’s own admission.
This all began back with the Ben Stein threads, when Zombie, in the manner of, “Hey, kids, let’s all put on a show!” like in old musicals, suggested, “Hey, kids, wouldn’t it be great if we got all the Bible thumpers out of the Conservative movement?”
I think one of Charles’ problems is that he thinks it’s his job to reform the conservative movement, making it more acceptable to smart, cool, liberated persons, who would otherwise turn up their noses at the Republican party. With Zombie, Kilgore, medaura-the-jihadi egging him on, I believe he sees his mission as attacking those awful Bible thumpers, so the rest of the world will love him.
Sadly, he’s dropping coverage of on going jihad.
He loves to put up these threads every few days so that he and the sycophants can snicker and make jokes at the expense of people that CJ feels he is intellectually superior to. It’s a turn-off and a disgrace, imo no matter where you come down on the issue. What I find so utterly remarkable is that of all the threats to western civilization, CJ feels that Creationism is one of the more serious of the bunch.
Yes, I know. He’s apparently dropped covering the world wide jihad to focus on fighting the evil creationists. He doesn’t see who the real enemy is.
Charles keeps exposing his anti-Faith view while yadda yadda yadda…
Osama bin Laughin’ is a man of faith. Tomás de Torquemada was a man of faith. The goons who murdered Indira Gandhi were men of faith. And yet woo-woo is supposed to get some kind of special consideration simply because some {Qur’an|Bible|Guru Granth Sahib|etc.}-thumper calls it faith.
Yes, I know. He’s apparently dropped covering the world wide jihad to focus on fighting the evil creationists. He doesn’t see who the real enemy is.
OK, let me see if I had this straight. Supposedly Islamic scholarship turned stagnant because the doctrinaire side of Islam won control. It might even be true, and I’m going to assume arguendo that it is indeed true. Now, why do you think that the doctrinaire side of Christianity will have any less baleful an effect on Western scholarship? Is it because they promise not to kill so many people in the process of returning us to ignorance and superstition?
How is it that the force to survive and competition was so fierce among animals that for instance a fish slowly changes to have nubs instead of fins then slowly gets legs from those nubs. All the while in the million years of changing it is neither a good fish nor a good amphib.
Neither a good fish…
nor a good amphibian…
but a quite successful something-in-between.
You name one of the testable predictions of evolution: that the intermediate forms, one and all, must be successful creatures themselves. These forms, so far as we have found them, have met this criterion.
Of course, one of the more dishonest tactics of cdesign proponentsists is to define transitional forms out of existence. Archeopteryx? Well, now the transitional forms are the ones linking theropod dinosaurs to Archeopteryx, and the ones linking Archeopteryx to birds, and voila! You now have two gaps to explain! We haven’t found any transitional forms, and we have found Archeopteryx, so Archeopteryx can’t be a transitional form. QED.
19.
Now, why do you think that the doctrinaire side of Christianity will have any less baleful an effect on Western scholarship? Is it because they promise not to kill so many people in the process of returning us to ignorance and superstition?
Comment by Sura 109 — November 25, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Surah, name ONE instance of modern day Christians who are promising “not to kill so many people in the process of returning us to ignorance and superstition”. Are you actually “listening” to what you say when you type? Please answer that, and then please explain why you feel so threatened by Christians.
And for the record…I do beleive that Charles has taken his eye of the REAL enemy…the jihadis who seek to attack us again at some point. They haven’t just “given” up, and that’s EXACTLY what they want American’s to think…that they’ve “gone away”…and they want Aamericans to turn on themselves (infighting) as a distraction, and that’s EXACTLY what this “war on Creationism” over at LGF has turned into. Where is Charles’ “emphasis on the Middle-East”? I haven’t seen that “emphasis” in a LONG time.
So all but about 10-15% of the earth’s population is ignorant and superstitious?
If it were me, and I found myself in a very small minority of opinion, I would first question myself as to why I thought myself so qualified?
Surah, name ONE instance of modern day Christians who are promising “not to kill so many people in the process of returning us to ignorance and superstition”.
Two words: Proposition 8. They tell us that letting Feelthy Queers® get hitched is some kind of threat. They offer no reason why, except that somehow it will give cooties to their white-bread Leave-it-to-Beaver families. Just what those cooties will do, they never explain.
They push abstinence-only sex education, and then wonder why their daughters get knocked up.
They push “Goddidit” as science, and then lie to us all by telling us they’re not. “Goddidit” is not science, never was and never will be, for the whole point of science is “HowdidGoddoit?”
Are you actually “listening” to what you say when you type? Please answer that, and then please explain why you feel so threatened by Christians.
First they came for the Feelthy Queers®, and I did not speak because I was straight. I’ll let you take it from there.
So all but about 10-15% of the earth’s population is ignorant and superstitious?
If a majority believe that the Earth is flat, does that make it any less round? Does that invalidate the evidence, from the changing angle of the Sun with latitude, from ships’ hulls disappearing over the horizon before the masts, from the Earth’s shadow upon the Moon during an eclipse, from the photos taken from the Apollo craft?
Also, roughly one-third of the world is at least Christian-in-name-only. That means two thirds don’t believe in your God, at least not in the same way as you. That’s also a majority. And which Christianity? Catholicism? The Southern Baptists? Mr. Wackadoo God-Hates-Feelthy-Queers out in Kansas?
Beware, for Christians have never killed with such alacrity as when killing other Christians. The whole point of the establishment and free-exercise clauses was to put that genie in the bottle. We let it out at our peril.
Sura 109,
I’m in favor of Civil Unions, not Gay Marriage. I believe that’s a fair compromise that most would accept. Actually Jews worship the same God as Christians. The dispute is over the Messiah issue and other minor things. I personally am Religious, but I’m secular politically. However I don’t like the demonization of the Social Cons. They love America and aren’t doing beheading. They are my allies. We have real internal enemies like Umar Lee and CAIR. That’s where our focus should be on.
Ah Sura,
One thing I always loved about your arguments as you always have been an equal opportunity bigot. I’m afraid the 20th century doesn’t smile to profoundly on the atheistic realm as you suggest.
But I will be more than happy to compare my faith and the respective results vs. any other you wish to choose, including atheists.
If a majority believe that the Earth is flat, does that make it any less round?
I’m just curious how you have deemed yourself more worthy than 85% of the world’s population? Exactly what credentials can you hold for us to measure in balance besides opinion?
Proposition 8.
Other than marriage since the dawn of man has been defined as man and woman. Can you provide me a historical example of where gay marriage has proven not only successful, but accepted as the norm, say previous to the last 30 years? I can’t seem to find it.
Gay, bigot and atheist to boot?
Somewhere along the lines of the unholy trinity. What a candidate you will make!
Sura, how is defining marriage as being between a man and a woman “going after the feelthy queers?” Oh, and by the way: this kind of debate; accusing Christians of hating “feelthy Queers” (with cutsey spelling, no less), using the term cooties and dragging in, yet again, June and Ward Cleaver, whitebread families, blah, blah, blah as some sort of proof of—well, something or other, is arguing by ad-hominem insult, and is childish. If you have real arguments, make them. Don’t just throw a temper tantrum.
Tex Taylor makes a good point. Is there, anywhere in history, an example of a flourishing civilization that encouraged gay marriage? Even in societies such as Ancient Greece, which encouraged homosexuality, a man was expected to marry a woman and produce children for the city-state. If there is such a society, can you name it?
Also, the fact that Proposition 8 succeeded does not excuse the way its supporters have reacted against the “eeeevil Christians” (hey, I can use cutesy spelling too), with traffic-blocking protests and targeting Mormons and anyone who contributed to the campaign. That’s totally out of line.
Yes, tuffasnails, where’s the emphasis on the Middle-East, and the ongoing jihad? LGF has lost its focus on that, partially, though not completely, due to the influence of some of the posters, such as medaura, who have helped to derail the site. There are real enemies, both internal and external. And they aren’t social conservatives.
I don’t think Charles is anti-Christian so much as hyper-secularist. He’s mostly irritated by religious beliefs that threaten to invade what he thinks should remain entirely secular issues. Creationism gets religious beliefs involved in scientific issues, and that scares Charles. The discussion of demon possession – such as Bobby Jindal going to an exorcism and appearing to take it seriously – gets religious beliefs involved in medical issues, and that scares Charles. The discussion of “End Times”, especially as they might relate to current events, gets religious beliefs involved in current events and political issues, and that scares Charles. In other words, you can believe in God all you want, just not make serious suggestion that God actually does anything, because that makes you a religious nut. And Charles hates religious nuts, apparently because he believes it is the main thing stopping him from forming a political monopoly on anti-idiotarianism. If only we could marginalize the religious nuts, more rationalists wouldn’t be afraid of the right wing, and we could usher in a new age of enlightenment. Wait a minute… I think they already tried something like that somewhere, like maybe France.
Unfortunately, this contest is fundamentally misdirected; being based upon the ‘frame of reference’ of thought, which is the ‘fallen’ consciousness.
In other words,the position of the “creationists” is not necessarily to be preferred to the position of the “evolutionists”; both theories originating in thoughts which are based upon the assumed existence of a ‘thinker’.
More specifically, both the theory of evolution and the theologies of the monotheistic religions originate in the ‘fallen’ consciousness, which originates with self-reflection; whereas the Revelations in the Torah, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Koran originate in the “observing consciousness” which exists prior to self-reflection, having been Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27).
For a more detailed explanation see:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81/21 (scroll down to the Camp statement);and my blog on the science of consciousness.
Michael Cecil
# 22
Two words: Proposition 8.
California right now has a domestic partner law which grants gay couples the exact same rights a heterosexual married couple has. The only difference is the name.
So now because it has a separate name gays claim is segregation on par with what black Americans suffered from at the hands of whites. While they forget that blacks had to sit in the back of bus and had different water fountains and different bathrooms, gays do suffer from that so their segregation argument is just a delusional fantasy.
The gayhad here in California is not about “rights” its about forcing people to accept the gay agenda.
I would polygamist the right to marry although not called marriage, before I would let gays redefine marriage.
I am tried of living a lie, I must confess I am a straight white bitter gun clinging, bible clinging American male.
#22, Sura.
How did this go from a discussion about Evolution/Creationism to homosexual marriage??
#27 georgeguy wrote,
I view secular humanism/atheism as being religions, and some who adhere to those views (’religions’) try to force their beliefs on others.
That Charles Johnson and other anti-Creationists think that they come to the table without their own world views and prejudices coloring how they view information and science (and interpretations there-of) is beyond annoying.
I want to say right off the bat that I don’t have anything bad to say about Charles or LGF. We don’t see eye to eye but that’s ok with me. I am quite sure that I will disagree with as many people here as I do there. And that’s ok too.
And, I’m hoping that I can get some real insight into this question and not just a lot of pejoratives directed at them. I asked this same question of Gordon in an email to him and haven’t heard back.
I just can’t figure out what Charles’ agenda is. He has willingly disenfranchised many of the original posters in the LGF family (as you all well know). But, why. Is it really the evolution thing? Is that really that important to him? I can’t figure it out. Has this been some type of intentional purge? Anybody got an idea?
This goes along with what I was saying in post 31.
Why Does the University Fear Phillip Johnson?
Emphasis added by me:
From another page (”Defeating Darwinism -Phillip Johnson Steals the Microphone”) at the same site:
I really don’t know, Parson. I suspect it has a lot to do with his relationships with some of those who post there, such as Kilgore, Zombie, medaura and her husband, MPH and Sharmuta. I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that he’s still, deep down, on the Left, and he wants to find some way to get back to it, and be accepted by those he once hung out with. I doubt evolution really is that important to him. He may be trying to prove some sort of point, or trying to impress a certain group of people—but I just don’t know, I don’t think anybody does.
I am hoping LGF II becomes a good site for news and discussion, the way the old LGF used to be.
Whatever it is, I don’t intend to get all broke up over it.
Other than marriage since the dawn of man has been defined as man and woman.
Bull. Marriage since the dawn of man has been defined as a man and as many fucktoys as he can support. Monogamy is a relatively recent innovation, and one that all the world still does not accept, however beneficial for men and women alike it may be.
Can you provide me a historical example of where gay marriage has proven not only successful, but accepted as the norm, say previous to the last 30 years? I can’t seem to find it.
We of the Western world are the innovators here, the first ones to try allowing same-sex marriage.
Now, answer my question: What specific harms do you allege will come from same-sex marriage? I’m asking about cause and effect, not “it’s always been that way”. Appeal to tradition is not an argument.
Gay, bigot and atheist to boot?
Somewhere along the lines of the unholy trinity. What a candidate you will make!
1) I’m straight. Just not narrow.
2) It’s a strange definition of “bigot” that includes those who prefer evidence over appeals to “faith” and appeals to “tradition”.
3) I’m more agnostic than atheist. It might be different if God would show Its face once in a while.
Oh, and by the way: this kind of debate; accusing Christians of hating “feelthy Queers” (with cutsey spelling, no less),
It’s intended to clue in the just-plain-ignorant (as distinct from the willfully ignorant, who are beyond hope and beneath contempt) to the sarcasm.
using the term cooties and dragging in, yet again, June and Ward Cleaver, whitebread families, blah, blah, blah as some sort of proof of—well, something or other, is arguing by ad-hominem insult, and is childish.
If this is not what the anti-Feelthy-Queer brigade believes, then what, praytell, do you believe?
Tex Taylor makes a good point. Is there, anywhere in history, an example of a flourishing civilization that encouraged gay marriage?
Strawman. No one is talking about encouraging anything, only allowing. No one will stop you from marrying opposite-sex if you wish.
Also, the fact that Proposition 8 succeeded does not excuse the way its supporters have reacted against the “eeeevil Christians” (hey, I can use cutesy spelling too),
So, then, it isn’t evil to organize with the aim of restricting the freedom of others without a damn good reason? (If the Morons had a damn good reason, then do explain what it is.)
with traffic-blocking protests and targeting Mormons and anyone who contributed to the campaign. That’s totally out of line.
So, then, they should ask the Moron bigots pretty please? Should George Washington and Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine have asked King George pretty please? Should Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks have asked Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond pretty please?
No one has gained recognition of their rights by asking pretty please. Ever.
Damn, it sucks not to have preview on this blog.
Sura,
Why don’t you show us your bravery and go down and protest say in Carson, CA? You bunch of cowards…the only reason you don’t go protest anywhere but the Mormon church is you know you won’t have your skull split in two. I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of prissie phonies in my life than that Prop 8 crowd.
Yea, you’re wide alright. What should I expect from someone telling me about the new tradition of sperm swimming in feces being the norm.
By the way, your ignorant and crass statement about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter didn’t make any sense either. That the daughter didn’t take mom’s good advice doesn’t make the advice any less worthy; more worthy, in fact. Another ignorant comment on your behalf. I recognize a puffer like you wouldn’t understand that abstinence actually does work – bullet proof, in fact.
Your ignorance of the Bible astonishing. Everyone who tried anything but one man, one woman ended in misery. Of course, if we try it your way, maybe we can slide into Gomorrah. That worked well…
Man, you ought to cruise out to San Fran and take root – sounds like your kind of wide place, where the bums sh*t on your sidewalk, and the weed there for the taking. Sounds like you’d be right at home.
Here’s one thing I can agree with hatemonger Sura – I need a preview key.
Make that Compton, CA…
HARUN YAHYA is really an eye-opener
Somehow, we all should realize that evolution – really – did not happen at all. It is a kind of a fairytale that was made up in order to make people believe that somehow things were created other than the will of God. This would invent another religion, besides the true one based on Revelations.
Then some part of the world came to believe in this fairytale, actually deluded by atheists and the history of evolution is filled with fake transitionals, reconstructions and artwork to put out imaginary half-ape half-man creatures that would indoctrinate and hypnotize the masses to believe in this story.
Please wake up for your own sake! Evolution cannot have happened. There is no mechanism for it. Natural selection cannot add new genetic information on an existing DNA setup. We even do not understand what the 4 letters on the DNA mean when they come together in a 3 billion letter library filled with information. Natural selection may provide that faster running rabbits are not prey to others, but this does not make rabbits to become super rabbits!!!
I think the world is already seeing that they have been fooled by this old British storyteller named Darwin.
Er, no, Sura, they shouldn’t ask “pretty please.” They should continue to riot, attack Christians, snarl up city streets, and this will accomplish—um, what, exactly? Such actions will, inevitably, turn the community, even many who originally supported them, against them, and lose them a lot of sympathy.
Hmmmm, I didn’t support Obama, but he won. By your logic, all those who didn’t want Obama for president are now entitled to go out and riot and try to attack everybody who supported him, and maybe burn down a few Democratic headquarters. After all, just submitting and accepting him as president, and asking him “pretty please” to do what we want him to would just be weak and cowardly, right? Did the founding fathers just give in to King George! No! So, burn, baby, burn! Don’t let weaklings talk to you about rule of law! The way to get your own way is to throw a gigantic public temper tantrum! Don’t say “pretty please!” Say Power to the People! Hey, hey, ho, ho, that Obama’s gotta go!
Right?
I’m sure you’d agree, right? (Hope you catch the sarcasm, there. The left these days, seems to be all about silly sarcasm and doing what makes you feel good.)
There are a lot of things wrong with gay marriage, one of them being that it removes either a mother, and/or a father, from the marriage equation. Both are important for a child’s well being. Numerous studies have shown this. But I’m sure this is going to penetrate with someone whose historical knowledge is so vestigial he sees marriage as always having been about men collecting “fuck toys”.
What specific harms do you allege will come from same-sex marriage? ~ posted above
New Jersey and California both allow domestic partnerships and both now have had gays sue E-Harmony for discrimination, because E-Harmony is a straight dating site.
There is no shortage of gay dating sites, but that is not enough for them so they go after the Christian straight dating sites also.
I am sure they will push hate speech laws next, then sue to have any mention that homosexuality is a sin removed from the bible.
I wonder what would happen if a straight sued a gay website for not offering dates with the opposite sex? Think that lawsuit would go anywhere?
I think it was Michelle Malkin who said something along the lines that the E-Harmony lawsuit is like somebody going into a vegetarian restaurant, and getting mad because they don’t have steak.
Domestic partnerships are not going to be enough for gays. They want to force churches that don’t approve of homosexuality to bend to their will, and provide same-sex marriages, even if they have absolutely no interest in being members of said churches, and don’t believe in any of the doctrines they teach.
The entire thing is just one more way to attack Christians/Jews, and weaken the traditional family.
Basically, it all comes down to controlling what Christians and Jews believe; they don’t want to take on Islam. This is directly opposed to freedom of religion.
As far as freedom goes, gays in California do have domestic partnerships, which provide everything a civil marriage does. That wasn’t enough for them. They want religions that oppose homosexuality (except Islam, of course) to knuckle under and say, “Yes, these are real marriages”, which is, as I pointed out, violates freedom of religion. Gays could migrate to the Episcopal church, which is moving towards blessing of gay unions, or they could join other religions, such as the Wiccans, who would probably bless them. Not good enough. They want to bring the Mormons, Catholics and all denominations that hold marriage is one man, one woman, to their knees.
As far as organizing. . . it isn’t against the law to raise money for causes one believes in, or to try and garner support for propositions or candidates one believes in. And demonizing those who support things one disagreed with, putting their names out in public and urging everybody to form a mob against them and force them to resign/recant/apologize/cough up money is going to do serious damage to the democratic process in this country. As I said earlier, if any time you lose an election, or some proposition you don’t like gets passed, or one you did like goes down in flames, is the best reaction to riot and attack people, until you get your way? After all, if just saying “pretty please” and abiding by rule of law and accepting the vote is for wimps, wusses, sissies and fools who say “pretty please” then any vote, anywhere, is going to be determined, not by the majority, but by how loudly the losers scream, yell and intimidate the public into giving in to them.
Okay, everybody who didn’t support Obama start lighting your torches and gathering up some rocks to throw! We’re gonna march on the White House, and demand some change of our own! But first, let’s go protest my neighbor down the street, who’se got a big Obama sign in his window! How dare he? Well, we’re not going to stand for being oppressed by the likes of him!/Sarc. Of course! I’m not suggesting anybody do this—in fact, I think they shouldn’t! But it shows where this kind of thinking can lead.
DJM (or anybody else here),
Do you know of any discussion forums on the Net that intelligently debate this issue? I want to find one or more individuals willing to spend time offering a detailed counter-refutation of a refutation of Darwin I found that, in my opinion, is logically unassailable.
The essay is very long and requires patient, careful reading and a great expenditure of time.
Link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CgaofQgyqJEC&pg=PA101&dq=Theological+and+literary+Journal+1860+Darwin#PPA101,M1
This link takes you to a table of contents. Look there for “Art. V.–Darwin on the Origin of the Species” (page 101), which when clicked, will take you to the right page.
Note: The article does lapse here and there into peripheral, if not irrelevant, preaching about Creation; but these lapses, in my judgement do not affect the unassailable logic of the refutation it articulates.