Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Abe Lincoln: Arch Liberal Traitor!
The next time you wonder why Abe Lincoln is held in such high esteem, consider his prophetic letter, as a congressman, to his long-time law partner William H. Herndon, explaining his opposition to the Mexican-American war.
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, -- 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. "
A leader impoverishing his people in wars by invading countries suspected of planning an attack...sounds eerily familiar. I guess Lincoln was just another bleeding-heart liberal, and a traitor, and all the other idiotic names the pro-war crowd likes to hurl at anyone who dares question the wisdom of a war high in cost and low in tangible benefits...to anyone possessing a lot of Haliburton stock anyway.
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, -- 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'
The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. "
A leader impoverishing his people in wars by invading countries suspected of planning an attack...sounds eerily familiar. I guess Lincoln was just another bleeding-heart liberal, and a traitor, and all the other idiotic names the pro-war crowd likes to hurl at anyone who dares question the wisdom of a war high in cost and low in tangible benefits...to anyone possessing a lot of Haliburton stock anyway.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Oreskes on Global Warming Denial
It's almost an hour long, but historian of science Naomi Oreskes gives an interesting talk on the history of the global warming denialist movement in America. In the first half of the talk she goes through the history of the issue as science, which went at least as far back as the 1930's, particularly showing confirmed predictions over the years. In the second half of the talk, she goes through the denialist groups and their tactics. Once again I was struck by the similarities in tactics between the global warming denialists and other forms of denialists, such as:
Use of outdated sources. She quips at one point that Fred Singer was challenging them using 500 year old science.
Use of fake experts - people with credentials, but in irrelevant fields.
Focusing on creating and sustaining controversy and doubt of science, rather than creating a full blown scientific alternative.
Making charges of bias and unfairness when a 50-50 time allotment is not given to a point of view held by less than 1% of the scientists.
Making their arguments, not in scientific journals, but in books and the popular press.
This is exactly what the evolution-deniers do, and once again it is no shock that there is great overlap in the two groups. Bill Dembski's Uncommon Descent site has times where it is as much global warming denialism as evolution denialism.
Use of outdated sources. She quips at one point that Fred Singer was challenging them using 500 year old science.
Use of fake experts - people with credentials, but in irrelevant fields.
Focusing on creating and sustaining controversy and doubt of science, rather than creating a full blown scientific alternative.
Making charges of bias and unfairness when a 50-50 time allotment is not given to a point of view held by less than 1% of the scientists.
Making their arguments, not in scientific journals, but in books and the popular press.
This is exactly what the evolution-deniers do, and once again it is no shock that there is great overlap in the two groups. Bill Dembski's Uncommon Descent site has times where it is as much global warming denialism as evolution denialism.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Gambling Deal Classified
For anyone who still doubts the absurd abuse of executive privelege of the current administration, take a look at this article. A backroom deal to salvage a cowardly and ill-informed act of legislative interference in the lives of millions of law-abiding poker players warrants treatment as an item of national security? It'd be funny if it weren't real.
Berlinski Exposes the Insanity of ID
The Intelligent Design slide into insane crankery continues, as revealed by their glowing featuring of David Berlinski's reality-averse rantings. As usual, we can't help wondering whether people are deranged/stupid, or think their audience is, who would say things like this:
The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is of course preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized… Look, these people are only human, they hate criticism — me too. The idea that scientists are absolutely eager to be beaten up is one of the myths put out by scientists, and it works splendidly so they can avoid criticism.
Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else? On what basis is this statement made? It sounds like plain old vanilla egalitarian ideology, unsullied by observations of the real world. All one need do to see the self-critical level of scientists compared to, say, alternative medicine/science practitioners, is look at their writings. Scientific writings are filled with qualifiers on their knowledge, corrections of errors, and vigorous debate over even the most extreme minutia. Read an alternative medicine journal, say one of energy massage, or a quack science/religion site like, oh I don't know, Uncommon Descent, and compare it to something like Panda's Thumb, and the differences are obvious. PT readers will tear into each other over the smallest disagreements, whereas intense debates are almost nonexistent in those other forums. Disagreement with cherished notions, such as who designed the designer, get you banned from the pseudoscience sites, not the science ones.
Now it is of course true that scientists are not eager to be criticized, but this is merely a straw man Berlinski introduces to have something easy to knock down. What makes science special, and what is responsible for much of its unparralleled epistemological success, is the willingness of its actors, not to be criticized, but to criticize each other.
We’re asking for standards of behavior that would be wonderful to expect but that no serious man does expect. A hundred years of fraudulent drawings suggesting embryological affinities that don’t exist — that’s just what I would expect if biologists were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular democratic society. Let’s be reasonable… the popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution, and scientists as men who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data, is okay for a PBS special, but that’s not the real world; that’s not what’s taking place…
And who can argue with a man who thinks the drawings of Haekel, nearly 100 years dead, is relevant to a discussion of science today? Worse yet, Berlinski gets his facts wrong (I know, shocker). While Haeckel may have fudged his drawings, the embryonic affinities do exist, as photos of embryos clearly show, and his flaws and misdeeds are covered in textbooks precisely as flaws and misdeeds. If Berlinski thinks Haeckel is relevant to our discussion of modern biology today, it is he who is not dealing with the real world.
One of the reasons that people embrace Darwinian orthodoxy with such an unholy zealousness, is just that it gives them access to power. It’s as simple as that: power over education, power over political decisions, power over funding, and power over the media.
Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of cranks: when all the evidence goes against you, invent a conspiracy that suppresses evidence and keeps you down. Invent a motivation for all those people to be against you. Never mind that, as any practical analysis shows in minutes, such a conspiracy would collapse rather quickly were someone to attempt to form one, whether it be to fake a moon landing, or evolution. Berlinski apparently forgot his economics lessons on cartels, which can survive only if there is little to be gained from breaking from the group, and knowledge and a control mechanism for the group to keep would-be scabs from breaking ranks. An intellectual cartel on evolution could not survive because there is too much to be gained in fame and fortune for the hypothetical scientist who could overturn evolution with evidence, for him to choose silence. That and never mind the millions of us that recognize the truth of evolution and receive no economic benefit or power from doing so at all.
"…appraising Darwinian theory in the context that realistically portrays it for what it is: a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything you see in the serious sciences… Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life — BUT, here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn’t have any substance to it, 2) it’s preposterous, 3) it’s not supported by the evidence, 4) the fact that biologists are uniformly in agreement could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests."
Doesn't have any substance to it? The man is truly daft. Evolution says my ancestors, were I to travel far enough back in time, were not much like me, certainly not what we'd call human, and yet over time the accumulation of changed and selected traits produced me. To say there is no substance there is again to thumb one's nose at reality. For the ID folks to trumpet this pathetic, ignorant denialism reveals just how desperate for supporters they are. For their expert to wave away 150 years of experimental data as "preposterous" again shows just what sort of fantasy world they occupy. Finally, biologists are not in uniform agreement, as the creationists are eager to point out every chance they get. The debates on evo-devo, neutral drift, junk DNA, and other aspects of evolution are debated endlessly. Berlinski is again simply denying reality.
When people haven’t been criticized in a long time they react with a great deal of indignation when they’re criticized for the first time. It’s human nature. Put yourself in the position of a Daniel Dennett or a Richard Dawkins who are used to being the regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy, and for the first time in their lives someone says, “Hey, you guys are simply not credible.” Of course they’re going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to objurgations…
What they are indignant about, of course, is not that they are criticized, but that they are criticized by ignoramuses who don't understand evolution, have not examined the evidence, have obvious religious motives for their views, and most important of all, have never produced any evidence of their own. Would a carpenter be indignant to get criticism of his building? For sure if it came from someone who had never built anything in his life, quoted opinions of carpenters who lived hundreds of years ago as authorities on what designs and materials should be used now, and didn't understand even the basics of carpentry. This is the IDer/creationists in a nutshell, and Berlinski is a shining example.
Let's hope the IDers continue to put such obvious cranks at the forefront of their sociopolitical movement. It will help speed their inevitable demise.
The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is of course preposterous. Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized… Look, these people are only human, they hate criticism — me too. The idea that scientists are absolutely eager to be beaten up is one of the myths put out by scientists, and it works splendidly so they can avoid criticism.
Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else? On what basis is this statement made? It sounds like plain old vanilla egalitarian ideology, unsullied by observations of the real world. All one need do to see the self-critical level of scientists compared to, say, alternative medicine/science practitioners, is look at their writings. Scientific writings are filled with qualifiers on their knowledge, corrections of errors, and vigorous debate over even the most extreme minutia. Read an alternative medicine journal, say one of energy massage, or a quack science/religion site like, oh I don't know, Uncommon Descent, and compare it to something like Panda's Thumb, and the differences are obvious. PT readers will tear into each other over the smallest disagreements, whereas intense debates are almost nonexistent in those other forums. Disagreement with cherished notions, such as who designed the designer, get you banned from the pseudoscience sites, not the science ones.
Now it is of course true that scientists are not eager to be criticized, but this is merely a straw man Berlinski introduces to have something easy to knock down. What makes science special, and what is responsible for much of its unparralleled epistemological success, is the willingness of its actors, not to be criticized, but to criticize each other.
We’re asking for standards of behavior that would be wonderful to expect but that no serious man does expect. A hundred years of fraudulent drawings suggesting embryological affinities that don’t exist — that’s just what I would expect if biologists were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular democratic society. Let’s be reasonable… the popular myth of science as a uniquely self-critical institution, and scientists as men who would rather be consumed at the stake rather than fudge their data, is okay for a PBS special, but that’s not the real world; that’s not what’s taking place…
And who can argue with a man who thinks the drawings of Haekel, nearly 100 years dead, is relevant to a discussion of science today? Worse yet, Berlinski gets his facts wrong (I know, shocker). While Haeckel may have fudged his drawings, the embryonic affinities do exist, as photos of embryos clearly show, and his flaws and misdeeds are covered in textbooks precisely as flaws and misdeeds. If Berlinski thinks Haeckel is relevant to our discussion of modern biology today, it is he who is not dealing with the real world.
One of the reasons that people embrace Darwinian orthodoxy with such an unholy zealousness, is just that it gives them access to power. It’s as simple as that: power over education, power over political decisions, power over funding, and power over the media.
Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of cranks: when all the evidence goes against you, invent a conspiracy that suppresses evidence and keeps you down. Invent a motivation for all those people to be against you. Never mind that, as any practical analysis shows in minutes, such a conspiracy would collapse rather quickly were someone to attempt to form one, whether it be to fake a moon landing, or evolution. Berlinski apparently forgot his economics lessons on cartels, which can survive only if there is little to be gained from breaking from the group, and knowledge and a control mechanism for the group to keep would-be scabs from breaking ranks. An intellectual cartel on evolution could not survive because there is too much to be gained in fame and fortune for the hypothetical scientist who could overturn evolution with evidence, for him to choose silence. That and never mind the millions of us that recognize the truth of evolution and receive no economic benefit or power from doing so at all.
"…appraising Darwinian theory in the context that realistically portrays it for what it is: a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything you see in the serious sciences… Yeah, biologists do agree that this is the correct theory for the origin and diversification of life — BUT, here are some points you should consider as well: 1) the theory doesn’t have any substance to it, 2) it’s preposterous, 3) it’s not supported by the evidence, 4) the fact that biologists are uniformly in agreement could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests."
Doesn't have any substance to it? The man is truly daft. Evolution says my ancestors, were I to travel far enough back in time, were not much like me, certainly not what we'd call human, and yet over time the accumulation of changed and selected traits produced me. To say there is no substance there is again to thumb one's nose at reality. For the ID folks to trumpet this pathetic, ignorant denialism reveals just how desperate for supporters they are. For their expert to wave away 150 years of experimental data as "preposterous" again shows just what sort of fantasy world they occupy. Finally, biologists are not in uniform agreement, as the creationists are eager to point out every chance they get. The debates on evo-devo, neutral drift, junk DNA, and other aspects of evolution are debated endlessly. Berlinski is again simply denying reality.
When people haven’t been criticized in a long time they react with a great deal of indignation when they’re criticized for the first time. It’s human nature. Put yourself in the position of a Daniel Dennett or a Richard Dawkins who are used to being the regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy, and for the first time in their lives someone says, “Hey, you guys are simply not credible.” Of course they’re going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to objurgations…
What they are indignant about, of course, is not that they are criticized, but that they are criticized by ignoramuses who don't understand evolution, have not examined the evidence, have obvious religious motives for their views, and most important of all, have never produced any evidence of their own. Would a carpenter be indignant to get criticism of his building? For sure if it came from someone who had never built anything in his life, quoted opinions of carpenters who lived hundreds of years ago as authorities on what designs and materials should be used now, and didn't understand even the basics of carpentry. This is the IDer/creationists in a nutshell, and Berlinski is a shining example.
Let's hope the IDers continue to put such obvious cranks at the forefront of their sociopolitical movement. It will help speed their inevitable demise.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
John McCain supports intelligent design?
Is John McCain a creationist? It sure looks like it from this article:
McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.
It’s old, but the thumbscrews should be put to him on this. The first question of the first debate in the general election ought to be "Senator McCain, you've stated that 'all points of view' should be made available to students studying the origins of mankind. Aside from the mainstream scientific theory of evolution, what other points of view do you think need to be taught?". Then when he tries to weasel out of it by saying something vague like "we were put here by God", he should be asked a followup like "So you mean children should be taught that one moment there was nothing, and the next moment a man appeared as if by magic?"
If he wants the religious crazy vote, then let him earn it by stating their ridiculous positin publicly and unambiguously.
McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.
It’s old, but the thumbscrews should be put to him on this. The first question of the first debate in the general election ought to be "Senator McCain, you've stated that 'all points of view' should be made available to students studying the origins of mankind. Aside from the mainstream scientific theory of evolution, what other points of view do you think need to be taught?". Then when he tries to weasel out of it by saying something vague like "we were put here by God", he should be asked a followup like "So you mean children should be taught that one moment there was nothing, and the next moment a man appeared as if by magic?"
If he wants the religious crazy vote, then let him earn it by stating their ridiculous positin publicly and unambiguously.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Mike Adams asks Feminists to Convert to Christianity: this is NOT Satire
Yet again we get from the Christian Right another argument that reads like satire. Mike Adams thinks feminists should convert to Christianity. His reasons are, well, amusing, to say the least.
"There was a time when the important question of “when life begins” was in dispute. Now that films like “In the Womb” have become widely available to the public, visual evidence forces reasonable people to answer that question by moving further and further back towards the moment of conception. I believe that since conception is the moment when one’s genetic endowment is established, that is when one’s life begins.
OK Mike, it's fine and dandy that you believe that. But you see, your choice of the genetic endowment line as the moment (which really isn't a "moment" at all) when life begins is completely arbitrary, and thoughtful people might disagree. Many of us, for example, have decided that genetics is not enough. Sure a zygote potentially could become a walking, talking person, but then again so could a hair follicle. And since few would argue for rights for a "person" with no brain, and thus no desires, and no ability to feel pain, many of us are pretty comfortable with the idea that life begins when one's brain forms.
But, of course, for feminists, the debate on abortion involves more than just the question of when life begins. It also involves the question of whether there is a right to life once it begins. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers settled that issue long ago by stating the following:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Um, no Mike, aside from psychopaths there is no discussion of whether there is a right to life once it begins. I know it would be the death of you to actually accurately represent your opponents' position, but you could at least humour us once in a while.
That this view of the sanctity of life was inspired by the Bible is now lost among many self-proclaimed liberals.
It's lost on us because it obviously isn't true. There is little sanctity of life to be found in the Bible. Moses and his merry band roamed murderously for 40 years with Yahweh's blessing, nay orders for same. God asked Abraham to murder his own son. The old testament lists quite a few crimes for which the punishment was death. Further, when life is mentioned in the old testament, it is associated with the taking of the first breath. It says nothing whatever about the moment of conception. Nada.
Much of that has to do with the work of propagandists like Christopher Hitchens – a man who asserts falsely that Christians supported slavery until it became unprofitable. He ignores (intentionally, I believe) the contributions of Christians like William Wilberforce and John Wesley. Without them slavery’s demise would have been long delayed.
OK, time to brush up on our logic. The statement "Some X are A" is not refuted by a member of X that is not A. Of course Christians supported slavery, since nothing in the Bible opposes it. It doesn't come right out and say slavery is great, but there are Biblical rules governing disputes with slaves that assign a lesser punishment for crimes against them than against free people. Why does this have anything to do with feminists converting anyway? Because Adams is going to pull a favorite trick of Christian apologetics: anything good that Christianity touches is credited to Christianity:
"The Apostle Paul wrote in Galations 3:28 that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is a quote that planted a seed of sedition in Western culture, which makes it so easy to understand why Wilberforce did what he did. It also makes it difficult to understand the fierce anti-Christian rhetoric and actions of those who claim to be “liberals” and “human rights activists.”
A seed of sedition? Planted prior to about 1800 years of slavery? You've got to be joking. There is nothing in there about a right of liberty or happiness or property, just typically vague religious happy-talk. If anything, the phrase condones slavery, since it recognizes the distinction between free person and slave the same way it recognizes the difference between man and woman. They might be one in Christ, but here on earth they are not one at all.
"Before the Bible was written, women were deemed inferior to men throughout the world – just as they are today throughout the Islamic World. But the early Christian church stood up for women as no other institution had before. The church denounced divorce, incest, adultery, and polygamy. Christian men were expected to be devoted to one woman within the framework of lifelong marriage."
Sure, as long as the men were the head of the family, the women learned "in all silence and submission, Eve being deceived" and all that. Let's also not forget women could not and still cannot hold the highest offices in that church. And what is so great about denouncing divorce and denying a woman's ability to exit an abusive marriage? Adams is truly blinkered here.
"But, nowhere was the defense of women greater than in the early Christian opposition to abortion and infanticide. In the Roman Empire – not to mention China and India – female babies were sacrificed while the lives of male babies (seen as future warriors) were preserved. "
Let us remind Adams that the Bible promotes punishments for disobedient children of stoning and being deafened by having one's ear punctured with an awl. Christianity is hardly the place to look for enlightened views of childrearing.
Adams then reels off several non sequitors comparing feminist comments with supposed efforts of Christians in noble causes, as if that means anything. His completely lack of logic is best illustrated by this comment:
"While NC State’s Deb Luckadoo fights hard to impede the spread of Christianity, she simultaneously fights to promote homosexuality in a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Center. Meanwhile, many Christians – not just famous ones like Franklin Graham and George W. Bush – dedicate valuable time and resources to the global fight against AIDS, particularly in Africa."
Let us remind Adams that it is unprotected sex, not homosexuality, that helps spread AIDS. You know, its the same unprotected sex insisted on by Christian churches who fight against distributing condoms to those at risk for AIDS, thus exacerbating the problem. Let us also remind Adams that lesbians have the LOWEST rate of AIDS transmission of any group, so how can helping lesbians get comfortable with who they are conflict with the fight against AIDS? It doesn't, it's just another leap of illogic from the Religious Wrong.
Once again we see that these apoligists for Christianity are simply out of touch with reality. I await Adam's commentary on how blacks would be well served to join the KKK, and how vegetarians should frequent more steak restaurants, any day now.
"There was a time when the important question of “when life begins” was in dispute. Now that films like “In the Womb” have become widely available to the public, visual evidence forces reasonable people to answer that question by moving further and further back towards the moment of conception. I believe that since conception is the moment when one’s genetic endowment is established, that is when one’s life begins.
OK Mike, it's fine and dandy that you believe that. But you see, your choice of the genetic endowment line as the moment (which really isn't a "moment" at all) when life begins is completely arbitrary, and thoughtful people might disagree. Many of us, for example, have decided that genetics is not enough. Sure a zygote potentially could become a walking, talking person, but then again so could a hair follicle. And since few would argue for rights for a "person" with no brain, and thus no desires, and no ability to feel pain, many of us are pretty comfortable with the idea that life begins when one's brain forms.
But, of course, for feminists, the debate on abortion involves more than just the question of when life begins. It also involves the question of whether there is a right to life once it begins. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers settled that issue long ago by stating the following:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Um, no Mike, aside from psychopaths there is no discussion of whether there is a right to life once it begins. I know it would be the death of you to actually accurately represent your opponents' position, but you could at least humour us once in a while.
That this view of the sanctity of life was inspired by the Bible is now lost among many self-proclaimed liberals.
It's lost on us because it obviously isn't true. There is little sanctity of life to be found in the Bible. Moses and his merry band roamed murderously for 40 years with Yahweh's blessing, nay orders for same. God asked Abraham to murder his own son. The old testament lists quite a few crimes for which the punishment was death. Further, when life is mentioned in the old testament, it is associated with the taking of the first breath. It says nothing whatever about the moment of conception. Nada.
Much of that has to do with the work of propagandists like Christopher Hitchens – a man who asserts falsely that Christians supported slavery until it became unprofitable. He ignores (intentionally, I believe) the contributions of Christians like William Wilberforce and John Wesley. Without them slavery’s demise would have been long delayed.
OK, time to brush up on our logic. The statement "Some X are A" is not refuted by a member of X that is not A. Of course Christians supported slavery, since nothing in the Bible opposes it. It doesn't come right out and say slavery is great, but there are Biblical rules governing disputes with slaves that assign a lesser punishment for crimes against them than against free people. Why does this have anything to do with feminists converting anyway? Because Adams is going to pull a favorite trick of Christian apologetics: anything good that Christianity touches is credited to Christianity:
"The Apostle Paul wrote in Galations 3:28 that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is a quote that planted a seed of sedition in Western culture, which makes it so easy to understand why Wilberforce did what he did. It also makes it difficult to understand the fierce anti-Christian rhetoric and actions of those who claim to be “liberals” and “human rights activists.”
A seed of sedition? Planted prior to about 1800 years of slavery? You've got to be joking. There is nothing in there about a right of liberty or happiness or property, just typically vague religious happy-talk. If anything, the phrase condones slavery, since it recognizes the distinction between free person and slave the same way it recognizes the difference between man and woman. They might be one in Christ, but here on earth they are not one at all.
"Before the Bible was written, women were deemed inferior to men throughout the world – just as they are today throughout the Islamic World. But the early Christian church stood up for women as no other institution had before. The church denounced divorce, incest, adultery, and polygamy. Christian men were expected to be devoted to one woman within the framework of lifelong marriage."
Sure, as long as the men were the head of the family, the women learned "in all silence and submission, Eve being deceived" and all that. Let's also not forget women could not and still cannot hold the highest offices in that church. And what is so great about denouncing divorce and denying a woman's ability to exit an abusive marriage? Adams is truly blinkered here.
"But, nowhere was the defense of women greater than in the early Christian opposition to abortion and infanticide. In the Roman Empire – not to mention China and India – female babies were sacrificed while the lives of male babies (seen as future warriors) were preserved. "
Let us remind Adams that the Bible promotes punishments for disobedient children of stoning and being deafened by having one's ear punctured with an awl. Christianity is hardly the place to look for enlightened views of childrearing.
Adams then reels off several non sequitors comparing feminist comments with supposed efforts of Christians in noble causes, as if that means anything. His completely lack of logic is best illustrated by this comment:
"While NC State’s Deb Luckadoo fights hard to impede the spread of Christianity, she simultaneously fights to promote homosexuality in a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Center. Meanwhile, many Christians – not just famous ones like Franklin Graham and George W. Bush – dedicate valuable time and resources to the global fight against AIDS, particularly in Africa."
Let us remind Adams that it is unprotected sex, not homosexuality, that helps spread AIDS. You know, its the same unprotected sex insisted on by Christian churches who fight against distributing condoms to those at risk for AIDS, thus exacerbating the problem. Let us also remind Adams that lesbians have the LOWEST rate of AIDS transmission of any group, so how can helping lesbians get comfortable with who they are conflict with the fight against AIDS? It doesn't, it's just another leap of illogic from the Religious Wrong.
Once again we see that these apoligists for Christianity are simply out of touch with reality. I await Adam's commentary on how blacks would be well served to join the KKK, and how vegetarians should frequent more steak restaurants, any day now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
