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?)
On that note, read this interesting article: Darwin and the Fuegians. Concerning this, David Stove writes in Darwinian Fairytales:
When Darwin first encountered the Yahgan Indians in their homeland of Tierra del Fuego, he was thunderstruck. 'I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilised man: it is greater than between a wild and [a] domesticated animal, inasmuch as in man there is a greater power of improvement.' But in fact Darwin was mistaken about the Yahgans: indeed, just about as completely mistaken as it would have been possible to be. We know this from the testimony of a man who was born and spent most of his life among them. This was Lucas Bridges, whose parents were Christian missionaries to die Yahgans, and the first white settlers in Tierra del Fuego, only a few decades after the Beagle's visit.
OB: Yeah. That's far too few.
The evos are slacking, that's for sure.
Hey, “noob”. Welcome to FR.
It’s generally considered good form to read the article before blowing it off, especially when you’re a “noob” and just jump into a crevo debate with both feet like that.
Not an auspicious start to crevo debates.
Only if you think that the Bible isn’t really true or God lied when He told us....
Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
What? Are you starting this sectarian division nonsense too?
Every thread by the crevos says that if you believe evolution to be a scientific fact, then you are an atheist. Well, the Catholic Church is OK with evolution. Therefore, according to the crevo thinking, the Catholic Church must be athiest.
Please answer yes or no, is the Roman Catholic Church a christian religion or not?
Every thread the crevos put out related to religion,not science.
I did read the article. Pure twaddle as I stated up thread. If you knew any science at all you would have to agree.
Here is some advice - and it’s free:
Buy any basic (mainstream university) biology 101 text book and read it with an open mind.
Do you really think the thousands (millions actually) of scientists, naturalists, ecologists, researchers, professors, and teachers et al are all being hoodwinked? The thousands upon thousands of papers be presented yearly are fraudulent? We have learned much since Darwin’s’ day.
-Shakes head sadly-
Thanks for the welcome - I think..
Not an auspicious start to crevo debates.
Actually I did not sign up here to debate evolution in general. And I did not jump in with both feet. Like any other thread, I am adding to the conversation. Such as when a poster was wrong about nuclear devices:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306884/posts?page=43#43
“An atomic bomb is a nuclear device. It is a pure fission weapon (splitting of heavy nucleotides such as Uranium or Plutonium releasing energy) as opposed to a fusion weapon which fuses lighter nucleotides together releasing energy (thermonuclear device). Note: thermonuclear devices use a fission trigger (atomic bomb you might say) to overcome the curve of binding energy to enable fusion.
OTOH, they may be referring to a simple dirty bomb which just spreads radioactive debris. However, that is not a very effective device (i.e., bang for the buck - pun intended)”
I don’t think it’s divisive at all. In fact, the discussion is necessary. Christians have no problem at all with evolution. Do you, MM?
“If you love The Origin of the Species, embrace it! Call Australian Aborigines, Blacks and Indians what your father called them… SAVAGES!”
—I’d rather speaketh 21rst century American English than mid 19th century British English, but thanketh thou anyway.
“Somebody tell me the difference, please?”
—Sure. First I’ll mention where most Darwinists, Hitler, and most Creationists are in agreement: They agree that diseases, maladies, and harmful mutations are spread via genes. They also agree that the spread of many such genes can be checked via selective breeding. The difference is - what do we do with this information?
Darwin, like most Darwinists and Creationists believed that “if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil” and that “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
Hitler, OTOH, believed otherwise. But not because of Darwinism. In fact, Hitler believed in intelligent design and that speciation was impossible. He believed that change could occur, but only within kinds through selective breeding, just as modern Creationists argue.
(For more details see my post here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2259552/posts?page=43#43)
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
“just fed up with egomaniacs trying to drive traffic to their crappy sites.”
Hey, Stormer... Something I forgot to note.
Did you notice that this was posted in the “Bloggers/Personal” section? Do you think JR might have added that for a reason?
If you don’t like the forum, save us all some trouble and
don’t read it. And thank you for your comments!
By the way, send me the link to your crappy site. I might need a laugh.
“Or do you consider the Catholic Church and the Pope as not christian?”
Why in the world do you folks come out of the woodwork with your Catholic stuff when I post these... I’m not Catholic!
Truth is truth, I don’t care what religion you claim to be. Those of us outside the Catholic church do not consider him holy above any other man or his word more true than the scriptures. Scripture supports Creation not Evolution. Period.
“Congratulations. In 26 posts, you’ve managed to attract 3 spitwads (generalized criticism with no specifics and no support), 3 personal attacks, and 1 diversion attempt.”
I aim to please... nothing gets the natives riled like puttin’ the facts out there.
“If you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s always best to remain silent.”
Like with evolution? What you know of evolution you got from a jar of old bones with a little eye of newt thrown in for good measure. Witchdoctors playing the professorial role.
“The Declaration of Independence calls Native Americans “merciless Indian savages.”’
With one major, notable difference, slime. Most of the founders (if not all) understood it as a cultural thing not a state of being. And some of them were savage in nature. It may also be noted that the early immigrants to America did not consider all of them savages. By contrast, Darwin pointed to their savagery as a state of being and something that would eventually be conquered by the more civilized.
But who’s counting facts?
Details, details. Don’t let the facts interfere with your agenda.
On the contrary, the whole issue is very divisive and everyone knows it and every one can see what you're up to.
The *Christianity* of the individual of any member of any particular denomination is not relevant to the topic of the ToE nor the topic of this thread, no matter how you paint it nor how many contortions you and your cohorts put yourselves through to try to justify it.
In the end, the only purpose that asking a question like that can and does serve, is to pit one person against another by getting them into an argument about what a *real* Christian is while evos sit back and laugh at the debacle.
All you evos who are hopping on this bandwagon are not fooling anyone.
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.