[JCEccles]

You know how Stalin dealt with religious believers and other "nuts and troublemakers" don't you? He had them confined to psychiatric hospitals or shot.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that if the three branches of our government were controlled by people sympathetic to the ACLU, within ten years religious believers in this country would be rounded up like cattle and liquidated to "improve the species."

Ideas have consequences. Evil ideas have evil consequences. That's the lesson of the 20th Century, when social Darwinism and atheism controlled more than half the earth's population and genocide became all the rage.

[Right Wing Professor]

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that if the three branches of our government were controlled by people sympathetic to the ACLU, within ten years religious believers in this country would be rounded up like cattle and liquidated to "improve the species."

Run out of risperidol?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Sorry, I'm not a sympathizer.
Choices have consequences. Ideas may influence a person's choice, but, in and of themselves, ideas do not have consequences. Evil choices have evil consequences. Choices motivated from hate have evil consequences.
You can find atrocities committed throughout history that nay be based on an idea, but are rooted in hate. Hate is the motivating factor for the violent choice. Hate is also a by-product of fear(now I sound like Yoda.)If we were to elect hateful representatives, who hated Christians, then yes, we would have trouble. They might even use Darwinism to justify their actions, but it would still be based on hate, which may have evolved from fear. Some on these threads may very well fear the reverse. What is scary to them is which system, science, or religion is fueled more-so by emotion?

[RunningWolf]

Ideas have consequences. Evil ideas have evil consequences.

And I will add that Ideology's have consequences, Evil Ideology's have consequences. That is the lesson of the 20th Century, when social Darwinism and atheism controlled more than half the earth's population and genocide became all the rage.

Social Darwinism and atheism are still the rage. And now it has spread & morphed, but has not changed at its core.

To the Darwinist, essentially human life is for naught. Unborn human life is a meaningless toy to be played with, or as a commodity to be to be exploited by ((dultard to megalomaniac at the other end of the microscope))

The Darwinist wants to deny that we are conceived and born as Man. Rather he wants to step in and determine if and when man becomes man. If one listens closely to the Darwinist, his answer is 'never'. The Darwinist in the arrogance of his intellect, reveals his crushing ignorance.

Wolf

[jennyp]

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that if the three branches of our government were controlled by people sympathetic to the ACLU, within ten years religious believers in this country would be rounded up like cattle and liquidated to "improve the species."

Oh, you mean they'd use intelligently designed means to try to produce beneficial micro-evolutionary changes to an existing species?

Yes, I too would fear the prospect of those in power trying to intelligently design micro-evolutionary changes into our species.

[jec41]

You know how Stalin dealt with religious believers and other "nuts and troublemakers" don't you? He had them confined to psychiatric hospitals or shot. There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that if the three branches of our government were controlled by people sympathetic to the ACLU, within ten years religious believers in this country would be rounded up like cattle and liquidated to "improve the species."

Ideas have consequences. Evil ideas have evil consequences. That's the lesson of the 20th Century, when social Darwinism and atheism controlled more than half the earth's population and genocide became all the rage.

Maybe they got tired of being rounded up, liquidated, and hung as witches so that others could protect their faith and belief.