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 do not support their O&E's ideas concerning healthcare. NOW answer my first questions to you.
I think my question was first.
Nyah!
I answered your question now answer my question which was posted much earlier.... What in the below quote that you posted is that you disagree with?
“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. ..”
“Do you stand by the wording of that question? Yes or no.”
Yes. Now I’d appreciate an answer.
“...do you support Obama’s and Ezekial Emanuel’s ideas concerning healthcare.”
Of course not. Why do the YECs on this site continually confuse religion with politics?
As for the remaining questions, are you trying to draw a conclusion regarding evolution over billions of years from a experiment that lasted perhaps fiffty* ?
* That misspelling was just for you.
“I do not support their O&E’s ideas concerning healthcare. NOW answer my first questions to you.”
HAH!
So Darwin was wrong??? So you believe that Darwin’s ideas as related in the quotes were comparable to Ezekial’s and you disagree???
No. The record shows that I posted my question to you before you posted a question to me.
I will if you can show me how something dead can pass on it's genes.
One at a time... An answer to what? What I think Catholics believe? That’s easy... I gave you a chance to re-word it but your pride won’t let you so, here goes.
I don’t know. I’m not Catholic.
For the second... because the Founders “confused” religion with politics. You wanna discount the Founders go ahead, but you might fit in better these days on the whitehouse.gov site.
Third... I think you really misspelled it. And for me! You shouldn’t have (no, really).
Now, would you please clarify your next to final statement? Names... dates etc. I don’t understand what you’re asking (not much more clear than your “Catholic” question).
I don’t take issue with any particular part of it. It just dodges the real issue WRT salvation.
Again (after many reminders about twisting the question) I must inform you that you are once again restating the question incorrectly. The question is "Do you believe Catholics can be Christians. It is not about what you believe that Catholics beleive, it is about whether you believe that Catholics can be Christians.
“Do you stand by the wording of that question? Yes or no.”
Yes. Now I’d appreciate an answer.
Do you REALLY not know which question I seek an answer to*? Look close—it’s referred to in the post above.
* I ended that sentence in a preposition just for you.
How so?
Yes, that's what's going on. For example, in another thread, BuckW claims that evolution is a dogma of the Catholic Church:
Most Catholics believe in evolution, as does the Church as a whole.However, John-Paul II said:
It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.And Benedict XVI said:
We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.Nevertheless, atheists will continue to claim that the Catholic Church, as a whole, accepts as fact that man originates from naturalistic processes without the creative acts of God, and that man is a meaningless, unintended meat by-product of a mindless meatgrinder called natural selection. I know from prior experience that they will continue to make this claim no matter what you, I, the Pope, or anyone says.
It's clear to me that you will accept nothing less than abject submission. If I'm proven wrong I accept that, but most of what we deal in is opinion, and in that there is seldom an absolute right or wrong, but rather a difference of opinion, and an airing of views. I can live with that. Apparently you cannot.
Seems that you have just discounted the founders by saying they were confused. Obama will welcome you to the whitehouse.gov site.
“I think my question was first.”
“No. The record shows that I posted my question to you before you posted a question to me.”
Nope... nope... It’s clear to me that my question was first.
“Let the record show that the question posed by the questioner of the first party (GG) was posited before that of the questioner of the second party (CW). So let it be written, so let it be done!”
“Any nays?”
“Whinny!”
“Let the record stand!”
See... you should have voted.
I didn’t give the answer in #140, so you’re talking to the wrong guy.
But you don’t like the answer in #140 either, since it doesn’t go along with you disruptive agenda.
“...because the Founders “confused” religion with politics.”
The founders did not equate a political ideology with a religious faith, as you recklessly equate conservatism with YEC-centered Christianity. Or, conversely, as you deny the conservatism of Christians who believe in evolution (the majority of Christians, that is).
Just messin’ with you... here’s your question and my honest response:
“Please expain why you disagree with the following statements you posted. Thank you.”
“Thank you for your kind reply.
Because I haven’t resigned myself to believing there is no difference between animal and man. Man has a different and greater worth than animal in God’s creation so, even though what Darwin said may be true of animals it is not relatable to mankind... Why?
Because man has a soul that is worth saving and, as a believer in the God of Creation, I believe life was created as a sacred thing and that the weak are not obstacles to overcome.
Because I believe we are all in a fallen state... that there is no life less worthy than my own... or yours.
Because Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost and to redeem the sins of anyone who believes, to heal the sick and infirmed and make the blind man see.
Jesus didn’t tell the blind or the lame to go away and die because they were a blight on humanity and a stumbling block to the able. He offered hope and healing. It is in no way injurious to the state of man to attend to the weak. With man it seems to make the weak strong and encourage the one who lifts up the other... to make them stronger men themselves. Stephen Hawkings would have been left to die if Darwin’s premise were followed to it’s ultimate conclusion. There are countless others who would have perished; Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, Franklin Roosevelt, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox... All of these would be left to die so that the strong might survive.
The conclusion most evolutionists draw when confronted with Darwin’s statements is that he meant them in a different context than how we take them. Darwin, however spent some time lamenting the fact he could not be as harsh as he would have liked because of social dictates, ie. the feelings of his family. He would have, by his own admission attacked religion if he felt unfettered from the chains of society opinion.”
I reiterate, I cannot and will not change my answer because you either do not like it or do not understand it. This answer is directly related to the statements and assumptions made by Darwin about our relationship with one another and our ancestors. And my answer is in direct response to the quotes in the article.
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.