Posted on 08/09/2009 8:10:48 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Just in case anyone missed it (and I think most did), there is little difference between the brother of Rahm Emanuel (Ezekial) and none other than Charles Robert Darwin.
I trust at this point most of you have seen the ravings of one of the lunatic healthcare advisors to Obama, the high potentate of all that is to be united. Ezekial Emanuel’s words could just as well have been spoken in the Third Reich and are as follows:
"When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value."
Justification for killing children under the guise of abortion started with something as humanistic as “only in cases of rape and incest” and landed squarely in the passenger seat of “a woman’s right to choose”. As a society we have been flirting with euthanasia for some odd years now. Well, as incrementalism would have it, it is now beating down our doors and trying to take control of our healthcare system.
Another of Obama’s close compatriots, Cass Sunstein had this to say about his relationship with Obama:
“Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School. He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.”
This is a quote from Mr. Sunstein regarding the topic of healthcare:
"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."
As a general rule, those in politics and academia do not speak in a vacuum. It is only through years of programming that these people, including Obama develop a callousness that is unmatched in normal society. The teachings of public education and education in our major universities have centered on the idea that Darwin’s theories are correct even against human and scientific evidence to the contrary. If you want to know where these radical thinkers derived their ideas, you need look no further than the writings of one Charles Robert Darwin.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one up to the last moment. ..”
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“ Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“[Yet,] the aid which we feel impelled to give to the help¬less is mainly an incidental result of the [otherwise good] instinct of sympathy...”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
Evolution… the survival of the fittest… we wonder why our children emerge from the higher institutions of learning and forsake our God, our morals and our teachings. They do so because the theory that is so pervasive in those institutions belittles our existence and lowers our relevance to that of a simple animal. Is humaneness in a society a trait to be honored? Yes. Are animals meant to be abused, neglected or treated dishonorably? No!
It’s perspective, man!!!
If there is no God and we are truly left to our own moral devices, then we are no more than animals. Our our worth is no greater than the sum of all our parts and any Evolutionist who claims the strength of their morality is being dishonest with themselves and dishonoring the very name of their evolutionary savior, Charles Darwin! Don’t tell me we are no greater than the animals that were placed on this earth to serve mankind and then brag to me that the strength of your convictions is greater than Christianity.
If you love The Origin of the Species, embrace it! Call Australian Aborigines, Blacks and Indians what your father called them… SAVAGES! Rave about the inferior female mind:
“. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).”
Be true to your roots as Evolutionists, supporting those like Emanuel and Sunstein who sound more like Darwin and Hitler than Jefferson or Reagan. You keep your faith and vote for healthcare reform: I’ll keep mine and fight Darwinism, Communism, Humanism, Socialism, Marxism and everything they stand for!
Or perhaps you could look into what it is Charles Darwin actually believed. Take note that your beliefs on the origin of the species are more in line with the Communist and Nazi than with the Christian. Don’t just listen to your mealy-mouthed professors who watered down the conclusions of a man possessed of the opinion that you came into this world from ancestors swinging from the trees. READ WHAT DARWIN ACTUALLY SAID. Then use the brain God put in your thick skulls to draw your own conclusions.
P.S. If you actually read Darwin’s writings and believe what the man said then, why do you consider yourself conservative? No, I really want an answer.
Question: Who said this?
"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."
Answer: Adolph Hitler (Now tell me how that differs from Darwin’s survival of the fittest mentality?)
“I think it is wishful thinking. One of the posters reacted to a common phrase with thoughts of viewing private parts.”
What was that thing you said about ‘evil’? You are such a juvenile... explains a lot.
That was not the question. The question was whether your 'Christian' movement defined Catholics as non-Christians.
Actually, my claims are accurate and illuminating.
I never said that almost every Christian believes in evolution (terms like “almost every, “almost all”, etc. have a precise meaning in mathematical analysis and that matters to a mathematician like me). I said that most Christians do.
And “asinine” has one “s”. Practice conservation of s’s, and spell it “ainine” next time.
Sort of like eating the apple and seeing evil where none exists.
“When you try to nail him down on any specific quotes and how he comes to his conclusion from that post, he jumps the shark.”
Hop.
Hop.
You guys are bigger dodge-monkeys than I am. So there...
Are you gonna cry now because you think someone didn’t answer your question the way you wanted? I’m sorry about that! I’ll try to give you what you ask for next time.
“Buck has never asked you to condemn others. I would have to infer from the above that to answer the question would require you to either lie or to condemn Catholics.”
Infer... infer. You’re such a stinking broken record.
Infer what you wish or you might take the time to actually let an original concept enter your brain. I won’t take the time to re-re-explain what I’ve already re-explained.
Careful. I think he has another meaning of 'toying'. Your phrase 'pants off' excited them pretty good!
It goes sort of like this. Just an example with no relation to any living posters.
To GG: Do you love your mother?
GG: Why do you ask me to condemn my mother?
As opposed to "toying with" them?
“To GG: Do you love your mother?
GG: Why do you ask me to condemn my mother?”
Do you really like posting completely bizarre unrelated comments?
You got my answer. Next question... the current one has become boring.
It would be just as fair for me to observe that no response is accepted except abject submission.
You posted several quotes from Darwin. NOWHERE in your posts have you dealt with any of those quotes. I asked you about one of them and you ducked the question.
Thanks for the admission that it went right over your head.
Have you tried anything except that?
Thanks Mr. Spellcheck. I’ll take a note to spell your name with one “s” from here forward. I must be making substantial headway if you’re becoming concerned with spelling innacuracies.
And as for your illuminating comments, you never “illuminated” us on the intelligence of this question, “Do you believe that the actions that are specified in the passages from Romans that you quoted number among the requirements of the Catholic faith?”
Do you stand by the wording of that question? Yes or no.
Also, I’ll re-ask the question I posed to CW earlier and I expect an answer;
In light of the teachings of Darwin and your confessions that you believe them to be accurate, do you support Obama’s and Ezekial Emanuel’s ideas concerning healthcare.
Let’s review:
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
Yes or no? (I totally believe you’re both too scared to answer. Please invite all of your evo friends to answer the question... this is a political site, you know)
“I asked you about one of them and you ducked the question.”
I believe I answered it, but I’ll answer yours if you answer mine (see my last post)... quack, quack.
‘Crickets’
1. I asked you to support how any of the quotes supported your conclusion. You ducked the question.
2. Next, I picked the first one and asked you to comment how your arrived at your conclusion. You ducked the question and claimed that I was 'excerpting' your post!.
3. You excerpt your post and ask another a leading question with ever stating how that quote had any relevance to your question.
You didn't. See my last post. Now you claim you will answer mine only if I answer yours first. My question was first. You answer mine and I will answer yours.
No, I don't say it's merely a coincidence. What I say is that evolutionary theory is an observation of a principle being enacted all around us, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. It's just there, and it couldn't be simpler: those that survive, reproduce, those that die, don't, and with every birth genetic changes occur. Therefore the changes that survive, do so because they help survival, because they did not die before reproduction.
Eugenics, however, is the concept of taking this observation and using it to justify mass murder. It doesn't matter if Darwin himself (let alone scientists or his family) want to do this (and Darwin didn't), it's still eugenics and not evolutionary theory.
As I pointed out, fire fighters study the process of fires. They understand in incredible detail how and why fires act. That knowledge does not make them arsonists, even if arsonists study the exact same information to commit arson.
Critical thinking - get some today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.