Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site

12/11/2009 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.

We don't go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.

We do not believe that government or science knows what's best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much.

Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.

For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.

And a few years ago a group of evolutionists tried to force FR over to their way of thinking and they soon found themselves on the outs.

FR is a pro-God, pro-Creator, pro-Life, pro-Liberty site.

And now we have yet another group of Darwinists trying to have their Darwinist way with us. Well, as I've said before what doesn't kill us will only make us stronger.

Darwin Central has again declared war on FR. They have ping lists and email lists and will try to pull away as many FReepers as they possibly can. So be it. Those who would rather go with Darwin, please go. I sure as hell won't try to stop you.

FR will remain a pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-Creator conservative site.

We wholeheartedly believe that our unalienable rights are a gift from God our Creator not from man or government. And no man, no government will ever deprive us of same.

Keep your powder dry.

[sickoflibs]

While I agree that ‘young earth creationists’ have not come up with any scientific explainations for anything (that is not their purpose, nor IDers) ;you have to be careful with statements like ‘“evolution” has been scientifically demonstrated.’

Human evolution has not been scientifically demonstrated, nor can anything in the past that is unrepeatable be demonstrated.

A big troublemaker is Dawkins who makes evolution the cornerstone of promoting his atheism. He fuels the creationist/ID fire.

[metmom]

While I agree that ‘young earth creationists’ have not come up with any scientific explainations for anything (that is not their purpose, nor IDers) ;you have to be careful with statements like ‘“evolution” has been scientifically demonstrated.’

The fact that people think evolution has been demonstrated to be true goes to show that evolution is not being taught without bias in the public schools.

[xcamel]

Proof that there is a merciful God indeed.

[Dudoight]

FR is my ‘main thing’ on the internet. I am thankful for its presence.

[Grunthor]

“Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site”

I

am

Home!

[Rebelbase]

Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio!

[wendy1946]

If any freepers would like to prove me wrong and show me all the evil eugenic policies and references to inheritance in Darwin's works, they are free to post otherwise.

Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.

The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"

Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:

From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:

Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

....It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people....

... "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

...I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

....No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany.... ...Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions....

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose i

s finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

...If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this:

the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.

All of that, of course, deals only with the question of ethics and the logical consequences of evolutionism. The fact that evolution is junk science argues against it as well.

[sickoflibs]

Re:”The fact that people think evolution has been demonstrated to be true goes to show that evolution is not being taught without bias in the public schools.

IDers (your brothers) say current small scale evolution has been demonstrated. Some creationists do also.

That poster was making some point with that line, not yet sure what it is. He needs to define ‘demonstrated’. I used human evolution as an example.

[ex-snook]

Well done, Jim, well done. This is a site for sore eyes.

I only know two things for sure.
1] There is a God.
2] It’s not me.

[expat_panama]

"Debate is one thing. The reason those people got banned is another."    "It's not about just differences of belief. It's about mockery and ridicule and name calling. "

What, mockery and ridicule can get a freeper banned?  Someone please tell me what the guidelines are on this.

[wendy1946]

But for the record, I also agree with the statement Behemoth the Cat made before being banned:

"I am also a Christian who thinks “evolution” has been scientifically demonstrated.

That is simply wrong. Evolution has been scientifically disproven repeatedly over a very long period of time to such an extent that any real science theory (i.e. any theory which was actually defended for reasons related to science rather than to careers and lifestyles) would have long since been discarded.

I've mentioned the decades-long fruit fly experiments conducted in the early decades of the 1900s and the explanation for the failure of those experiments offered by the discovery of DNA. That by itself should have ended evolution as a viable theory.

Another overwhelming disproof has been the continued total failure to find intermediate fossils; Darwinism demanded that the VAST BULK OF ALL fossils be clear and unambiguous intermediates. The total lack of any such finally forced Steven Gould, Niles Eldridge and others to concoct the hare-brained "punctuated equilibria" (punk-eek) theory to replace Darwinian gradualism. Punk-eek has so many problems itself that evolutionites generally now try to present aspects of both theories as if they were compatible, which they were not.

For that matter, the other thing which Punk-eek was intended to resolve was the Haldane Dilemma, which describes the gigantic time spans which would be needed to spread any genetic change through any large herd of animals which was already spread out geographically. People who have followed the Haldane problem to its logical conclusions speak in terms of quadrillions of years for anything resembling evolution to produce our present biosphere even if that were possible, which it isn't.

Nonetheless, far from having quadrillions of years to work with, we are now gradually learning that the dinosaurs which we've been told all our lives died out 70 million years ago, were here much more recently than that and that the 70 million years are basically a fairytale. This information includes blood, meat, and other soft tissue found in dinosaur remains over the last few years:

as well as clear images of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs:

Like I say, it's basically all over but the shouting. Evolution is a dead theory walking.

[plsjr]

Thank you Jim for your Faith, your Patriotism, your grit and your site. You make me proud to be a Freeper.

[calicard]

Include me in this group of American Patriots!

[FreeReign]

Then either one or both of these subjects must be poorly understood by you.

That's your opinion and I think it's lacking in intelligent thought.

[metmom]

“What, mockery and ridicule can get a freeper banned? Someone please tell me what the guidelines are on this.”

First of all, you left of the name calling, which can qualify as personal attack.

If someone doesn’t get involved in mocking or ridiculing other FReepers and their beliefs, there should be nothing to worry about.
**********************************************************
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a non-commercial site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.
***********************************************************

Otherwise, why is that a concern? Are you worried?

[xcamel]

One should be changed

Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and must reflect the opinions of Free Republic and its operators.

[doug from upland]

Here is a general idea of what we believe. There are, of course, exceptions. This is right wing fanatical? The only reason our Middle America values seem so right wing is that the other side has gone so far left, they are off the political spectrum.

1. We believe that it is the right of all men to live free and determine their own destiny.
2. We believe that we are ultimately answerable to God for what we do on this earth.
3. We believe that the Constitution is the greatest secular document ever created and that, although it is secular, the influence of God in its creation cannot be denied.
4. We believe that men and women are different and that children have a much better chance in life if they are raised by a mom and a dad.
5. We believe that America is the greatest nation in the world and the greatest force for advancing freedom in the history of this planet.
6. We believe that it is first the job of the family, the extended family, friends, neighbors, and your community to help people. We should not look to the federal government first. That was never intended by the Founders and is an enormous waste of money and resources.
7. We believe that people who do bad things deserve to be punished. We may feel badly that someone had a rough childhood, but that gives him no right to harm another innocent person.
8. We believe that a murderer should pay with that which he has taken from someone else.
9. We believe that the most innocent of all — the child developing in the womb — needs to be protected.
10. We believe in the dignity and ability of individuals, not of groups. We will judge everyone on what they do, not on the color of their skin.
11. We believe that people should be rewarded by their sacrifice and hard work, not because they are part of a favored group.
12. We believe that slavery was horrible, but there are no living slaves and no living slave owners. A white person can feel badly that slavery was in our history, but we have no reason to feel guilty. We didn’t do it.
13. We believe that the most important purpose of the federal government is the national defense of this country and maintaining a strong military.
14. We believe that if communists or Islamist terrorists want us dead, we need to take the strongest action possible to prevent it. We shouldn’t leave our security to the United Nations.
15. We believe that you don’t negotiate with evil. You destroy evil.
16. We believe that there are some bad policemen, but the overwhelming majority do a great job. We should be grateful that they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect us.
17. We believe in the right to own guns for our personal protection.
18. We believe that trial attorneys have run amok and are sucking the lifeblood out of business.
19. We believe that our schools have been taken over by leftists who care more about their agenda than teaching our children the skills they need to succeed — reading, writing, math, and science.
20. We believe that homosexuals should be left alone, but that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman, and that children should be adopted by a mom and dad.
21. We believe that the word “American” has no place in the American Civil Liberties Union.
22. We believe that people should be able to smoke in a restaurant if that is the way the entrepreneur wants to run his business.
23. We believe that the excessive confiscation by the government of the money we earn is both immoral and hurts our economy.
24. We believe that an able-bodied person who receives money from the government (from us) should do something productive to get that money.
25. We believe that the free expression of faith does not violate any provision in our Constitution. In addition, we believe that the attack on religion and decency is doing great damage to our nation.
26. We believe that immigrants should obey our laws and wait their turn in line to come into this nation.
27. We believe that Ronald Wilson Reagan is the greatest president of the 20th century and that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter tie for the worst.
28. We believe that Islamist terrorists and and the political left pose the greatest dangers to this republic.

[Natural Law]

"Then either one or both of these subjects must be poorly understood by you."

ROME (AP) — A Vatican cardinal said yesterday that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific realities like evolution, though he described as “absurd” the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reiterated church teaching about faith and science at the start of a Vatican-sponsored conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Levada said the Vatican believed there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said.

He said although the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.

“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven,” he said. “But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”

The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to stress its belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to stress its belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.

When did "reason" become a synonym for science, must less uniformitarianism?

[Natural Law]

"When did "reason" become a synonym for science, must less uniformitarianism?"

"Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican’s culture minister, said today that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible. The Vatican discourages literal interpretations of the Bible, including the literal interpretation of creationism that is at odds with the very solid scientific theory of evolution."

"Ravasi said it this way: Creationism belongs to the “strictly theological sphere” and could not be used “ideologically in science.”