Posted on 12/11/2009 8:50:14 PM PST by Phileleutherus Franciscus
Too bad I got zapped. I was going to post this last night, but thought calmer heads would prevail. Guess I was wrong.
What has become of the FreeRepublic I joined so long ago?
Years ago, when this forum was young and gaining membership, the dedication to conservative principles was the theme that attracted many who were looking for an outlet to voice matters of political opinion in light of the Lewinsky Scandal. It was my primary reason for signing up. It gave me solace when I was racked in pain with a broken neck and back from an accident. It has been a place where returning the kindness shown to me has been easy, and rewarding. It has been a place to share the horror of 9/11, and the tears of the nation, the celebration of birth, and the tragedy of death and loss.
It has become a home of sorts, where I can share my experiences, and laugh at some of the wit and humor of so many valuable people. I have laughed with you, and cried for you and with you.
But that has all changed.
Through the years I have seen people come and go and be purged for political views that became, not one of debate, but one of demeaning personal attacks on those who did not agree with them politically. Once again, that has reared its ugly head here at FR and in the form of religious beliefs.
Recently, there has been a new creeping fascism by a small group of Creation Science believers into FR. These few individuals would have you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, there is no other belief other than Jesus Christ, a great flood killed everyone and everything, leaving only a few survivors on a boat, which make little sense, and that any other opinion that does not agree with them either makes you either a ‘liberal’, an atheist, not worthy of posting here at FR, and not a ‘true’ conservative. They would have you believe the Theory of Evolution is the cause of every human disaster since the time of the printing of Origin of the Species and that all science is a lie. The threads promulgated by these very few proclaim the fact they are ‘right’, while anyone disagreeing or choosing to debate them are ‘wrong’. Some of these individuals have promoted bigotry and personal attacks, which would have gotten any other individual here banned.
Yet, under the protection of the owner of the site, these very few have had the audacity to instill their beliefs into the core of what was once a great conservative site, and is now one that determines your conservatism by your acceptability of Creation Science. It has now become a site that determines your conservatism based on rejection of Mormonism, the Roman Catholic faith, atheism, on any religious belief but their own, and not on conservative values that have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but on what is best for the country and what we revere as America.
This is the worst kind of fanaticism as it pits a particular religious belief against an individuals ability to think. Something that has developed over millions of years, from the use of rudimentary tools to the complexities we enjoy today, an individual’s ability to think sets us apart from most of the other animals. And we are still in the adolescence of that developing technology and intelligence. Look how far we have come from the written word to the printing press to the Internet.
This kind of fanaticism was used by Hitler against the Jews and just about every other race and culture, by the Italians against the African Continent, and by the Japanese against the Chinese. It was used by the Catholic Church in Spain as a weapon to force those not of the Catholic faith underground or tortured to death for heresy. It was part of the Crusades and the slaughter of millions of both Muslims and Christians. A struggle that continues even today, although it pits radical self-serving Islam against the free-thinking individual of any religious belief, basic human freedoms, and forces each of us to stand up to that type of extremism.
There are many religions in this world, and many beliefs in a different ‘god’. History is replete with various religious beliefs that either evolved or were discarded. Even those who do not adhere to the Christian belief should be free to choose what and how they think, and not be condemned by the few who see nothing but their way and dismiss their conservative values. This type of religious fanaticism degrades this forum to the very thing that the DUmmies expect from FR, intolerance of others.
Science is the quest for knowledge. That quest requires that each individual take a look at data and information and make a valued opinion. Science is not perfect, nor has it claimed to have all the answers, otherwise, cancer would be cured tomorrow, food would be grown enough to feed the world, and disease would be eliminated. But that is not the case. It is that quest that has sent us in directions to search for who we are, and where we came from. If the science leads us to god, or whatever deity that created the universe, then so be it, but to dismiss it is to ignore the progress of generations, and reinforces an ignorance that only education can alleviate. By using one book as the sole source to how everything has come to where it is now, is ignorance on the highest level. And to use that belief as a ruler to measure your worthiness as a conservative is beyond the pale.
I will miss the valuable wealth of knowledge of the gun-owners here. I will miss the total dedication to the memory of our brave fallen heroes, and the devotion to our military around the world. I will miss the realistic social and fiscal conservative values I found here that reinforces my own political views.
I will not miss the tolerated religious bigotry, the insulting, uneducated, demeaning tripe that passes for knowledge by those few who would dictate to the rest.
Yes, Jim, it is your site to do with as you please, but to allow the few to demean and dictate to the many what beliefs are acceptable and ‘conservative’, and with your blessing, is intolerable to me and probably many, many other conservatives here. It shows that the intolerance the left accuses conservatives of being does live on FreeRepublic. Maybe this kind of self purging is what you wanted allowing the sort of tripe we have seen lately. It serves conservatism very little and demeans everything you started this site to be.
I will continue to fight for conservative causes, pro-life causes, pro-gun legislation, and real conservative candidates to help us get this country of ours back to where it should be. It just won’t be here, where my beliefs in that conservatism will be questioned because my religious beliefs are not coincidental with the owner.
I pray for our country and those who fight for her, in whatever capacity they can.
Please remove my name from all ping lists.
Goodbye and good luck.
OK, fine, but I believe the problems arise when we start getting really, really specific about what brand of religion.
[[What I’ve seen also, however, is the definition of “conservative” become narrowed and exclusive. Conservatives used to champion individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and small government. What happened?]]
nothing- we still do- What has changed is the fact that evos tried to dictate how FR should be run, and when JR didn’t comply, they then resorted to petty tactics, and trollish behavior, then ran away screaming about intolorance, and blaming everyone else but themselves for their getting banned.
Challenging discussions are welcomed, and, although some get heated, most folks on both sides say what they have to say, and coem back another day and everythign is just fine, and both sides welcome such exchanges- the ‘changes’ you speak about htough are that the evos have resorted to militant radical tactics that are, on the surface, nothign but outright hostility towards those who don’t beleive as they do- they’ve made it theirm ission to actively seek out htose that have strong Christian beliefs, and follow them around harassing htem- this is exactly what has changed over hte last year or so-
Yes, there’s always been rivalries- and always will be- but we’ve witnessed lately a ramped up concerted effort by a few on FR that is unbefitting any site- especially a site which has expressly stated that it’s a right of center site-
As I’ve mentioend several times now- Those screamign about intolorance are themselves the most intolorant folks you’d ever want to meet- Folks who think Christians don’t have a right to bleeive that God meant hwat He said, who laid down historical facts in His word, and beleive htere are no other Gods- This apparently is unacceptable to those who choose not to beleive God’s word is His infallible word- but rather beleive His word is nothign more than a ;collection of ‘good suggestions’ to live by, that aren’t really historical facts, but just a collection of myths passed down and set to print’
[[Why do we have to pass some sort of religious litmus test now?]]
You don’t- but when folks claim to ‘beleive in God’, then turn aroudn and throw things like ‘You literalists are ignorant, and don’t understand the bible’ in our faces, then they can expect to be challeneged on the issue- the fact is that htose who were banned didn’t like being challenged, and turned around and turned the discussions into personal attacks- EVERY single time.
The definition of conservative hasn’t changed- but as mentioned already, there is, and always has been, degrees to which one is dedicated to conservatism. A person who beleives in abortion, beleives that it’s not wrong in God’s eyes to be gay, beleives that the govenrment shoiuld create a welfare state instead of folks being responsible for themselves, who beleives that criminals shoudl be afforded more rights than they gave their victims or that ‘victims deserve’ etc etc etc certainly can’t howeve4r claim to be a cosnervative when their values are not ifnact conservative, and should expect to be challenged on these and other basic principles of conservativism.
Linsay Graham claism to be a conservative, and if you’ve been following his latest statements, I think you’ll agree that he’s movign more and more to the left, moving away from the basic precepts of conservativism, and he rightfully should be called out for his claim of conservatism.
Those hwo beleive that the the bible and evolution are compatible shoudl be questioned o nthe issue, because the evidence does not support that claim- and one can only beleive that IF they don’t beleive that God’s word is infallible, an historical record, and an account given by God of the creation of hte world and everythign in it. One MUST disregard many key historical issues in order to beleive that, and doing so makes God out to be a liar and hte writers to be liars as well- when they specifically, and repeatedly stated that they were not writign of their own accord, but writing through the Holy spirit the words of God Hismelf.
We’ve been over this many times on FR so I’ll not go into htis further except to say that when someone quesitons hte historical record of God’s word, and calls those who beleive God’s word ignorant, and uneducated, and ‘intolorant of other people’s beliefs’, and do everythign in their power to disrupt and derail, and shut down threads discussing those issues, or demanding that they not be posted in general chat, but relegated to back room discussions which very few people frequent, they themselves are infact being intolorant of true bible believing Christians
At the beginning Americans were pretty selective, but in the last 50 years that has almost all disappeared.
You know, discussing the issues with you is much more enjoyable than with most evos.
But don’t fall into their trap of deciding what they think for them based on your perception of what you think their world view is.
That’s what ruins it.
And it’s not being very objective.
Which doesn’t really address your comment that that “I think one of the things most objected to by the evos, is that quite a few of the cres make very little effort to gain a proper understanding of scientific terms and concepts relevant to understanding what evolution *does* claim.”
It is not true that creationists make very little effort to gain a proper understanding of scientific terms and concepts relevant to understanding what evolution *does* claim..
“Do the words “Hadley CRU” ring a bell?”
I am glad you brought that up. While “creation science” types like to point to “global warming” as an example of “science gone bad” and excuse for not listening to real scientists, I prefer to point out that the hiding of actual data, the obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of results is the realm of “creation science”.
Yes, the “global warming” crowd did it with a straight face - as do the “creation science” crowd.
Now, are you glad you brought up the twin pillars of scientific fabrication - “creation science” and “global warming”?
new creeping fascism
bigotry and personal attacks
rejection of Mormonism, the Roman Catholic faith, atheism, on any religious belief but their own
This is the worst kind of fanaticism as it pits a particular religious belief against an individuals ability to think.
Hitler against the Jews and just about every other race and culture
Italians against the African Continent
the Japanese against the Chinese
the Catholic Church in Spain as a weapon to force those not of the Catholic faith underground or tortured to death for heresy
It was part of the Crusades and the slaughter of millions of both Muslims and Christians.
What, pray tell, did Christians do that was not part of the standard warfare of the day, practised by all armies?
Even those who do not adhere to the Christian belief should be free to choose what and how they think”
What?! If anyone has difficulty being free to choose what and how they think it is Christians, both at home and abroad. To claim otherwise is simply a blatant denial of reality (see The Voice of the Martyrs, serving the persecuted Church since 1967).
“Science is not perfect, nor has it claimed to have all the answers”
No? Just that it is the only path for discovering any worthwhile answers.
“I will miss the valuable wealth of knowledge of the gun-owners here. I will miss the total dedication to the memory of our brave fallen heroes, and the devotion to our military around the world. I will miss the realistic social and fiscal conservative values I found here that reinforces my own political views.”
Then why are you leaving? You don’t have to frequent any of the threads that offend you. Or, is it that you’re offended that you can’t ban any threads which displease you?
“I will not miss the tolerated religious bigotry, the insulting, uneducated, demeaning tripe that passes for knowledge by those few who would dictate to the rest.”
Dictate? How dictate? We are a voluntary society. Persuasion is our only tool. None of us are compelled to be a part of this society, none of us are compelled to accept anyone’s point of view, and Jim R is a remarkably tolerant host with few rules. Some of us are not open to persuasion, and that seems to upset you. It’s your fault that you are not sufficiently articulate to overcome everyone’s objections. The fact that your antagonists cannot be persuaded by the facts is not the only possibility. It’s just as likely that you make a poor case, or you have a poor case to make. Have you ever considered those possibilities? Don’t think you have. It’s far more likely that you simply expected everyone to agree with you and, if some did not, then you expected Jim to send them packing. It takes more for Jim to do that. He doesn’t propose to be just only to those you favor, but to treat everyone justly, and, for some reason, you seem to have difficulty with that.
Thanks, metmom, for the ping.
Fundamentalist atheists are the most intolerant people on the site. Its just getting tougher and tougher to sell science as an objective belief w/Global Fraud.
Pray for America’s Freedom
[[While “creation science” types like to point to “global warming” as an example of “science gone bad” and excuse for not listening to real scientists, I prefer to point out that the hiding of actual data, the obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of results is the realm of “creation science”.]]
that’s a misrepresentation of our position- we NEVER question the science simply because global warming has been shown to be a fraud- We quesiton it because there is evidence to show that hte claims are not infact true, and are based on assumptions, and NOT on solid science evidence- As well, we quesiton it because scientist after scientist has stated that they are systematically shut out of the process IF they question the science (much akin to the way the myriad of scientists coming out against ‘man-caused’ cliamte change were treated- so there we have a legitimate reason to question the integrity of hte process)
[[I prefer to point out that the hiding of actual data, the obfuscation, and outright misrepresentation of results is the realm of “creation science”.]]
mmm no, not so much- Trueorigins puts a stop to that claim right off hte bat- and exposes the FACT that it’s NOT the creationsits doing the hiding and obfuscation and outright misrepresenting but rather the ‘science’ sites like talkorigin- True origin has reams of evidence backign htis up- exposing hte cover-up- half-truths, and outright misrepresentations made by such sites as talkorigin. I’ve yet to see you or others make valid coutnerarguments to much of the science refutign macroevolution- all i ever see are great long posts that say nothign more siginificant really than ‘Creationists hide evidence’- or, at best, all I see are more assumptions provided as thoguh they were scientific fact not to be quesitoned either.
It’s claims liek you made that grate on those you dissagree with- IF you have evidence showign the statements made by creationsits are infact not correct, present htem- let hte evidence speak for itself- We’re stil l waiting. (Note, I have seen some attempts to provide evidence that refutes the scientific evidence that supports creationism or ID, howdver, upon doign research into the issue shows that those coutnerarguments have been themselves refuted, and has hsown that the science suppsoedly supporting evolution are just more of the same assumptions that lack evidence to support. as well, these assujmptions fly i nthe face of scientific laws that we ‘ignant deceitful creatards’ keep askign for for explanations for, but never receiving- Calling us ‘anti-science’ and ‘ignorant of ‘real science’ doesn’t answer the questions I’m afraid
I didn't. You did.
Do the words "Hadley CRU" ring a bell? Cheers!
That is the original post, in which I responded to a remark of yours -- even including your remark in italics so it was clear *what* I was bringing up and responding to.
You engaged in rhetorical overstepping, implying that "real" scientists would never ignore data and research.
So we can play the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and stipulate that the Hadley crew were not "real" scientists; thereby leading to the questions of peer review, accreditation, etc., not being sufficient to "guarantee" the accuracy even of published data in the professional literature; or, allow that even "real" scientists sometimes lie, cheat, and falsify data.
Notice that in all this I did not mention or allude to "creation science".
You might also like reading this and considering its relevance to the Hadley CRU and climate studies in general.
Cheers!
But there seem to be a number who repeatedly make claims which "aren't even wrong" because they are based on (bad pun) "fundamental" misunderstandings of some of the scientific terms and concepts.
A lot of that seems to be people taking a technical term and applying a vernacular meaning to it.
Cheers!
Can you be banned for simply supporting Romney?
IBTZ!
...it depends on how vociferously you do so, and how much you claim that he *is too* the best candidate, we need a "big tent" party, he'll pull in more undecideds than Sarah, etc.
And if you defend Steve Schmidt and/or Nicole Wallace, you might as well opus out right there.
Cheers!
“That’s a misrepresentation of our position- we NEVER question the science simply because global warming has been shown to be a fraud- We quesiton it because there is evidence to show that hte claims are not infact true, and are based on assumptions, and NOT on solid science evidence-”
No, I don’t think I’m overstretching. Science encourages questioning of established results and new approaches. That is why in order for science to be legitimate, it must be published, and data made available for scrutiny.
So absolutely there is reason to be skeptical of all conclusions in science. Where “creation science” fails is that it believes that because science is not absolute, that it is all false. It also fails in taking due skepticism and then publishing alternate conclusions with all the data and research to back up the alternate conclusion - there are of course papers published, I’ve yet to see one that substantially refutes or alters any established scientific views. There may be some out there - but I haven’t seen them. Point them out, by all means, I’m open to receive all the “creation science” research you can bring forward. I will give it the same due scrutiny that you would expect.
So, “evidence conclusions are wrong” is not refuting anything - you must go the rest of the way. “Creation science” never does that - because it isn’t legitimate research, as far as anyone can tell.
“You engaged in rhetorical overstepping, implying that “real” scientists would never ignore data and research.”
No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science. That’s why “creation science” isn’t real science.
If you point is that there are bad people in every field that will attempt to make conclusions where there is no justification to do so, you are absolutely correct - but proper research, documented, with data and able to be reproduced, as much as is possible is a cornerstone. A dramatic new finding would be tested, and if there was a different conclusion it would be questioned and overturned.
“creation science” is based on literal Genesis - all reasearch need do is reach a conclusion that something is “just as it is in the Bible”. If someone is skeptical - they risk being held out as a heretic in the “creation science” community.
Maybe there are genuine researchers in “creation science” that simply want to know the scientific facts before reaching conclusions. I’ve never seen a study posted here to that effect. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist - but given the false basis for “creation science” I have a reasonable doubt that there is any “real” science going on.
And thanks for the excellent reply.
Oh well....
No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science.
Re-read the sentence in italics.
Are the people doing falsification wrt Hadley CRU scientists, or not?
Because you claimed (again, post 143, re-quoted by me in post 170) that
"How can you, with a straight face claim that scientists would ignore data that is presented to them with actual research and data to back it up?"
So I wasn't asking if they were "engaged in science". I asked if they were or weren't *scientists*.
Are you unable to answer a simple question, when it doesn't lead to the strawman / ad hominem you would like it to?
Cheers! Cheers!
“I asked if they were or weren’t *scientists*”
I say no. I don’t know their resumes, but presumably they were at one time, but what they were engaged in at Hadley CRU was not science, and therefore the folks supporting it were not scientists. Maybe they were scientists in their spare time.....
“Are you unable to answer a simple question, when it doesn’t lead to the strawman / ad hominem you would like it to?”
I thought my answer was self-evident. Global warming “research” and “creation science” is not science they are deceptions, and those engaging in it - if their aim is to meet a pre-determined conclusion fitting some external influence - are not scientists.
I say no. I don’t know their resumes, but presumably they were at one time, but what they were engaged in at Hadley CRU was not science, and therefore the folks supporting it were not scientists. Maybe they were scientists in their spare time.....
OK, great. What is the definition of a scientist? What degree of deceit (including self-deceit) does it take before you become "un-scientisted"?
And what if you lie about one project but not others?
Cheers!
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.