A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[jwalsh07]

You (not you personally, but the overall encompassing "you") have called us Nazis, communists and liberals for accepting science over a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Stiff upper lip and all that. Come on Junior, you throw stones as good as anybody. I haven't lost a wink of sleep yet over the stones thrown my way by fellow freepers like yourself.

You want to do something to to advance conservatism and science?

Tell the technofascists supporting the "anti cloning" amendment in Missouri that we dreaded creationists are not all rubes. We know what somatic cell nuclear transfer is and we know that the amendment seeks to place the public purse at the control of the science community rather than elected representatives.

When you do that I'll know you are serious about conservatism and bridging the gap between science and religion.

[AndrewC]

No, wait. You're not Catholic.

And I'm not Muslim, but I sure can talk about their disingenuousness.

[Junior]

Tell the technofascists supporting the "anti cloning" amendment in Missouri that we dreaded creationists are not all rubes.

Actions speak louder than words. They must've gotten the idea that creationists were rubes from somewhere.

[Junior]

But you cannot comment on what is and is not a "good Moslem." You can comment on Catholicism or atheism (or disengenuousness) for that matter all you want.

[AndrewC]

But you cannot comment on what is and is not a "good Moslem."

Sure I can.

This is a good Muslim.(in fact, a hero)

And this is a bad Muslim

Care to argue?

[jwalsh07]

Actions speak louder than words. They must've gotten the idea that creationists were rubes from somewhere.

LOL, you've become a parody of yourself.

Oh and one other thing, I am Catholic and to be Catholic one must, of necessity, be a creationist. So when you self identify as a Catholic, I think that is ample evidence that you are a creationist and hence a "rube".

And since you have no problem with the followers of scientism trying to take the peoples money without being accountable to the people I guess you are some type of Marixist and Jim was absolutely right.

Now correct me if I'm wrong and I'll withdraw the Marxist comment. Do you support the Missouri Amendment or not?

[metmom]

Hell, you and other creationists don't want the science-types around either.

Right /s

I guess I'm having a real identity crisis; I don't know whether I'm coming or going.

[metmom]

JR has called us Marxists, socialists and a plethorah of other epithets on this thread simply because we don't buy into the fundamentalist party line.

Make that *conservative* or *republican* party line and it might make more sense. What is the *fundamentalist* party line? What's the *Fundamentalist Party* to begin with? Never heard of it.

What I object to is people who call themselves conservatives who think nothing of teaming up with vile organizations like the ACLU to help them further their America and God hating agenda. That does not lend any credibility to anyone who claims to be a conservative. Actions speak louder than words.

[Dimensio]

Oh and one other thing, I am Catholic and to be Catholic one must, of necessity, be a creationist.

Curious. Why, then, do you believe that Ken Miller claims to be Catholic?

[Gumlegs]

jw: Oh and one other thing, I am Catholic and to be Catholic one must, of necessity, be a creationist.

D: Curious. Why, then, do you believe that Ken Miller claims to be Catholic?

To be a Catholic, though, one must not of necessity, reject evolution.

[AndrewC]

To be a Catholic, though, one must not of necessity, reject evolution. ....

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. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. --- [from your link]

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment. ---- Dawkins

Gotta reject the evolution Richard Dawkins believes in.

[RightWingAtheist]

PH isn't here to say it, so I will:

THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE

[ahayes]

You're confused. We do not believe Richard Dawkins is God.

[jwalsh07]

Curious. Why, then, do you believe that Ken Miller claims to be Catholic?

Because Ken Miller believes exactly what Genesis 1:1 states. If he doesn't then he is not a Catholic. Simple stuff Dimensio.

[jwalsh07]

To be a Catholic, though, one must not of necessity, reject evolution.

Correct but one must, of necessity, utterly reject the materialism and reductionism of the neo Darwinists such as Dawkins, Dennett and Pinker.

"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. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

Do you support the Missouri Amendment?

[wyattearp]

So you wanna be a FReeper?

Ok, but:

1) You first must pledge to cease and desist from flaming, insulting, attacking, belittling, trashing, defaming or bringing any kind of harm or discomfort whatsoever to other FReepers and or to religious conservatives, anywhere, anytime, on this planet, or in any life hereafter, for all time and forevermore.

2) You must now and forevermore denounce any and all claims to the title "antifreeper" and cease and desist from dissing other FReepers or Free Republic from aforementioned Darwinian base camp or any other such place where antifreeping, stabbing in the back, and other equally unhonorable, unmentionable and despicable acts are conducted.

3) You must recognize that FR does not offer advanced degrees in the field of Evolutionary Science and shall therefore foreverafter swear not to attempt to title thyself "Evolutionary Scientist."

So, when another FReeper calls me a Marxist, a Hitlerite, a Stalinist, a follower of Pol Pot because I am studying for a degree in science, you are going to ban or suspend those people, right? I'm just asking because you never have, and your attitide indicates that you never will.

What you are suggesting is that from now on any scientists or person interested in science is a 2nd class citizen on Free Republic. We have a separate set of rules applied to us. Are we now to be assigned only 2/3 of a vote in polls as well? Or, would you rather that all scientists, and all who have an interest in science be stripped naked in the middle of the street, religious fanatics be given a pile of rocks, with you proudly proclaiming "there be witches"? You do realize that has been done before, right?

[jwalsh07]

Hi Andrew. I somehow knew you'd find your way to this beauty.

Keep the faith! :-}

[AndrewC]

We do not believe Richard Dawkins is God.

Never said you did.

[ahayes]

Then why are you acting as if his particular viewpoint is the only possible one science-minded people could accept? If Richard Dawkins is not God and does not dictate to us what we can and cannot think, than your post above was completely irrelevant.

[ahayes]

Yep, the science-minded apparently are to be the dhimmi here.