Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
O’Reilly told Dawkins”
you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?
See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
A lot like the dominionist nonsense that cm used to post.
My friend H. is a little like this fellow. H. is smart but he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about most of the time. He tries to find gold mines by swinging a pendulum over maps and is sure space aliens are buying up all the baby food in stores. Other than the many gems like that he firmly believes, he’s a pretty smart guy. Nuts but smart.
You got it.
And frankly the gun rights angle was a gift...I’ve not even seen that much out of these pests.
Evos have to re-write history and pretend as though they’re conservatives because they understand they’re losing their grip. And not just on FR either.
Everyone knows very few conservatives support evolution and especially evoluton ONLY, as enforced by courts. No genuine conservative Christian American with a straight face backs the NEA, ACLU evolution/origins “science”...
that everything just is, by sheer chance, without design, with no intelligence...even the Pope and Catholic church argue evolution IS intelligent design and an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God created all we know or ever will know.
Which is funny...liberals will demand religion be excluded from science class and then turn right around and use the Pope/Catholic church in making such an argument, sometime right after “religious attacks on science” each and every time their materialistic secular humanist moonbat cult is threatened.
Which is completely different from what the NEA indoctrination centers and ACLU demand.
Now why evolution shouldn’t be taught as intelligent design is beyond all conservatives, and only liberals like Bill Maher, Chrissy Fit Matthews and the sore thumb FReeper liberals on here support NEA ACLU “science” enforced by courts.
Once in a while and frankly more and more often, they expose themselves on here with their very liberal ideas for instance, their separation of church lunacy, denying the Christian origins of this country, etc. etc. etc.
Meanwhile, none of them can come up with a high profile liberal that supports creationism, because there ARE none.
Evolution as taught in public screwels is plainly the liberal position.
God is greater than science. In defense of an imagined strawman you put up a Oz worthy one. For your further knowledge on the use of the term, something you USE frequently but obviously don't understand; putting up an argument that you wish to address but that your nobody else has said is an actual “strawman”.
After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If that option is adequate for those in the majority who don’t like what the minority have inflicted on them, it should be good enough for the minority instead of forcing the majority to live by their standards.
Exactly. Liberals have wrecked the country.
If you look out across Arlington National Cemetery, you see alot of crosses and the occasional Star of David.
Then you have idiot moonbat liberals uptight with God saying things like:
God doesn’t belong in science class...
crosses don’t belong in town logos...
manger scenes don’t belong in town squares...
IGWT doesn’t bel;ong on our coins, etc.
the 10 commandments don’t belong...ANYWHERE...
(as if these aren’t bad enough, they attack crosses IN cemeteries and chapels!)
one day these idiot moonbats will succeed, just like they did in Britain and the rest of Europe.
Then, instead of worrying about hearing a woman reading scripture too loud to her kid on the public bus and being annoyed, they can worry about a dramatically increased sense of dread about where the next bomb will go off on a public bus instead.
God is greater than science. In defense of an imagined strawman you put up a Oz worthy one. For your further knowledge on the use of the term, something you USE frequently but obviously don’t understand; putting up an argument that you wish to address but that your nobody else has said is an actual “strawman”.
Ummmm, it’s a little late to start back-peddaling about attacking my tagline just now dreamer.
But it’s OK, I’m glad to see you coming around to your senses!
That vile lie to which you cling is way beyond strawman.
At first I was willing to disregard your ignorant attack, due to the fact that you are illequipped cognitively to understand the discussion from which you fabricated the lie, but at this point a liar has to be called a liar.
No backpeddling, that is just your delusion and habit of putting words in peoples mouths.
“But we are expected to fund YOUR religion?”
It was the first sentence that was your own words.
“Of course I am a geocentrist, I am a Bible believing Christian. Every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist”
editor-surveyor
PWNED. ;)
You are forcewd to display your ignorance again!
Don’t you ever get tired of being the fool?
Talking to yourself again?
You’re not going to play the victim now after all your poo flingin’ are you wacka-doodle-doo? LOL!
The relevant Bible passages too? The guy's agenda has nothing to do with their existence.
No you're the one confused...science may be a tool, but liberals hijack it to the point that it's not even recognizable as a tool...global warming, evolution...etc.
I know it's too hard to think about, but evolutionists ARE liberals. Almost always.
Ever ask yourself why no high profile liberal supports creationism?
Because they know appearance matters and they don't want to look stupid?
Nope...see above.
And believe me, the projections about not looking stupid have caught up to you!
You doing what you want in regards to religion works for me (and you)just fine. I’m not the judge of what isn’t or is done in the public schools. The law is the judge and if we follow the law then the state can not affect the establishment of any religious view in the public schools. That’s not me; that’s the law.
Recognizing God isn’t an “establishment of religion”.
A judge that hijacks the judicial system and ignores the Constitution to advance an ideology of secular humanism over the wishes of a majority of society, that incidentally was founded in the first place on Judeo-Christian ideology, isn’t “the law”.
And where’s the “free exercise thereof”???? That part always tends to get left out curiously in these public school ideological arguments. How convenient!
BTW...does this premise of yours get to work when creationists point out “the law”, you know the ultimate authority, THE law, God’s Word, biblical scripture...
you know, when anyone that understands scripture is attacked and called racist or a hater and so forth when it comes to origins/creation...?
or is this just another case of liberals making up rules they don’t intend to keep themselves?
Christians understand we answer to a higher authority than a liberal judge. And we don’t buy that a liberal judge, is “the law”.
So no...that’s not “the law”,
that’s epic fail.
We don’t buy it.
Public schools don’t belong to liberals. Not anymore than science does.
That’s how liberals work...they throw out every strawman known...
along with parroting the same nonsense ala Josef Goebbels...”religious attacks on science”...”flat earth”...”hate what you don’t understand”...
you pretty much name it...evo-liberals aren’t any differnt than any other kind of liberal.
and when called out on it....(see my tagline) they’re exposure is quite naturally going to be labeled as...
wait for it...
a strawman.
So essentially, liberals project.
And if you point THAT out, you’re projecting, and so on.
Same for red herrings...if you call them on it, that’s labeled a red herring.
pretty much ANY exposure of a liberal tactic is attacked and auto-labeled for exactly what’s employed in the first place.
Like Chrissy Fit Matthews calling for civility and so forth and then with a straight face talks about blowing up a CO2 cartridge in Rush Limbaugh’s head.
And like Jesse JACKS-nnnn calling Rush a racist.
The real question though is, why does the dreamer think he doesn’t stick out on FR like a sore thumb, when in reality he sticks out like an amputated one?
The long litany of liberal misrepresentations of conservatism, science, Christianity...just won’t fly on FR.
Because there is no difference between spontaneous generation and creationism?
Ever ask yourself why no high profile liberal supports creationism?
“Because there is no difference between spontaneous generation and creationism”?
Now that’s interesting, because I can see how a liberal would think like that, but nope.
I think you’re getting warmer though.
Think Nancy Pelosi.
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.