Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 10/27/2009 6:46:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In America we are a century and a half away from the "Know-Nothing Party", a secret political society that fulminated against the Catholic Church and Irish immigrants. (Asked about its composition, members would say, "I know nothing;" hence, the moniker.) Formed in public as The American Party, the party's hateful, nativist politics took a long time to expunge from our shores. But we now have an Englishman, Richard Dawkins--one of society's "Brites" according to his fellow-Darwinist, Daniel Dennett--in a screed against the Catholic Church that proclaims the same frothing bigotry exemplified by the Know-Nothings. This and Dawkins' various other attacks should remind us that the hoary religious hatreds of old (including those of the angry atheist) were a European legacy. Catholics and other Christians need to realize that Dawkins and Company aim to revive them.
Rome is possibly "the greatest force for evil in the world," Dawkins announces, "a disgusting institution" that is "dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp." That kind of language is like a blast of stale air from the 1850s.
You cannot expect his fellow Darwinists to repudiate Dawkins for the simple reason that a number (e.g., P.Z. Myers) share his prejudices and his paranoia. Darwinism never was mainly about science; it is about metaphysics. It is a worldview that has no space for the sacred, no regard for the exceptionality of human life. Darwinists, who operate few if any hospitals or homeless shelters, cannot recognize the humanity of those who do.
Dawkins is not an oddity. He is the world's leading Darwinian spokesman. He is hailed at universities, museums and foundations. Publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times--that simply will not run an article by scientists presenting the evidence against Darwinism--can't showcase him enough.
Other than such Know Nothings, what other modern bigots are regarded as so fashionable?
Why EXACTLY does a belief in evolution mean that one has to believe everything someone else that believes in evolution believes?
Oh yeah....this way, you can hide YOUR belief that Catholics aren’t “real Christians”...
As a non-Catholic, I don’t give a rat’s tuckus what they believe, how they run their show. That’s THEIR choice. I am not a member, I have no say. Couldn’t care less what they do.
.....but Dawkins is right on one thing. The Catholic church stance on condoms coupled with their lies to African catholics in high AIDS zones that “condoms do not protect against AIDS” is killing people and should rightly be condemned.
........and don’t go whining to the mods, Mr. “HIV does not cause AIDS”....you’re the one that linked an article that mentioned AIDS. ....and HIV does cause AIDS no matter how much lunacy you spread around.
Just don’t get him started on unpasteurized raw milk...
He must not know much about churches. The RCC doesn't believe Genesis is literally true.
Or the Religion Forum on FR.
>>Or the Religion Forum on FR. <<
Nail = Head
Which science?
It's a bad comparison. There is nothing in the New Testament that teaches Christians should kill those who don't believe. If a church has gone "off the rails" it was operating outside of Scripture.
***That kind of language is like a blast of stale air from the 1850s.
Or the Religion Forum on FR.***
You’ve hit the nail right on the thumb.
Atheism 101 begins thusly: IN THE BEGINNING, there was nothing, which then exploded...
>>The Catholic church stance on condoms coupled with their lies to African catholics in high AIDS zones that “condoms do not protect against AIDS” is killing people and should rightly be condemned.<<
Condoms are a false security.
http://www.epigee.org/guide/condomfaq.html
“Are condoms a good way to avoid being infected with HIV?
Condoms can reduce your risk of contracting an HIV infection. However, if your partner has HIV or AIDS, there is still a chance that you could acquire the virus even if you use condoms. A 1993 study found that, of 171 women whose male partner had HIV, two of the women became infected with HIV despite consistently and properly using condoms when they had sex. However, of those women who did not use condoms consistently with their male partner who had HIV, 8 out of 10 women became infected with HIV. Abstinence from vaginal, anal and oral sex is the only way to completely avoid the risk of HIV infection.”
“How often do condoms break?
Of the three different condom types, latex condoms are the most durable. However, anywhere from 2% to 6% of condoms will fall off or break during sex.”
So teaching condom use as opposed to abstinence is good because.......?
If they believe THE GOSPEL that's where they're going.
The nice thing about the FR religion forum is that it lets you know what the Cavinists and Pentecostals that you meet in everyday life actually think of you.
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I don’t believe for a minute that the anti-Catholic bigots on FR represent most Calvinists or Pentecostals.
I remain convinced (and/or hopeful) that the true proportion of rabid Catholic-hating freaks among protestants is vanishingly small.
In retrospect. I have a feeling that anti-Catholic bigots actually learn about FR from other anti-Catholic bigots. The religion forum here is perhaps the only place there is where Catholics and anti-Catholics can have an “anything goes” style of debate.
True.
I’d rather not know.
I’m an engineer — there is nothing anti-religious in pure, true science. Science is observation and logical conclusion. It exists in a separate sphere from religion. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is no scientific way to do this, hence science would not comment on this in any way. Dawkins is a pseudo-scientist
I’m an engineer — there is nothing anti-religious in pure, true science. Science is observation and logical conclusion. It exists in a separate sphere from religion. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is no scientific way to do this, hence science would not comment on this in any way. Dawkins is a pseudo-scientist
I just realized youre a n00b compared to some of us veterans of a 1000 crevo wars.
I cant even get him to dedicate ONE thread to me.
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.