Posted on 03/24/2006 4:03:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I've long suspected that some of the more outrageous creationists are deliberately harming conservatism. When someone relentlessly, after repeated corrections have been posted to him:
* makes the same misstatements of fact,we must ask ourselves -- is that person merely lost in a sea of ideas he cannot grasp; or is he perhaps the innocent victim of mental abuse as a child; or is he a left-wing operative who comes here to discredit conservatism and to generate discord among us? In other words, is he defective, or deceptive?
* repeats errors that have been frequently debunked,
* misuses words like "theory" and "faith,"
* misquotes published or posted material,
* feigns bewilderment to misconstrue simple statements and analogies,
* claims that science supporters are leftists, gays, frauds, etc.,
* behaves as if he were a spiritual warrior in a cosmic battle against science,
* alleges a causal connection between evolution theory and -- take your pick -- communism, socialism, nazism, fascism, racism, sexism, genocide, atheism, pedophilia, illegitimacy rates, drug addiction, school violence, homosexuality, etc., or
* praises the blatantly abusive or moronic posts of others,
Threats of any kind are wrong and totally uncalled for. True threats of violence should be prosecuted.
My guess is that every judge receives quite a bit of harsh criticism and occasional outright threats. Given the unbelievable levels of hate from the left that President Bush has to put up with, don't you suppose that conservative judges get their fair share of hate mail?
But they don't whine in public about it. They turn it over to law enforcement authorities if it's serious enough to warrant it.
What's going on now is a liberal media "meme" to create an impression that judges are under some kind of special assault from the "radical right". As the media sees the judiciary slipping from the left's grasp, this will only increase, and media-savvy judges will play to it.
Schlafly wrote less than two weeks after the decision.
"Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
I used to think that Schlafly was more savvy than this.
Did all those Evangelicals vote for W. because they wanted it taught that the hypothetical designer may be dead, as Behe testified?
"Had I ignored existing precedent," he said, "that would have been the work of an activist judge."
Exactly, as I have been saying ever since the decision in Kiztmiller. What Judge Jones did in this case is the very antithesis of "judicial activism."
In the Un-Discovery Institute's book that purports to refute the judge's decision, I wonder how many pages are devoted to the lies made under oath by some of the defendants in the case, or how much time they spend discussing the voluminous evidence presented at trial which proved that the "ID" text book "Of Pandas and People" is nothing but an old Creationist text in which the replaced the words for "Creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design" without so much as even changing definitions.
"Ah and we were being nice. Usually these words are typical form intended to intimidate one into silence, could we say threatening???"
Could we say *Drama Queen*? :)
"Could we say *Drama Queen*? :)"
LOL sure if it makes you FEEEEEEEL better.
"* makes the same misstatements of fact,
* repeats errors that have been frequently debunked,
* misuses words like "theory" and "faith,"
* misquotes published or posted material,
* feigns bewilderment to misconstrue simple statements and analogies,
* claims that science supporters are leftists, gays, frauds, etc.,"
These people are at a loss for what to say. Since they know little but feel they have to contribute they keep saying the same thing over and over. Other than being a drag on progress, they are relatively harmless.
"* behaves as if he were a spiritual warrior in a cosmic battle against science,
* alleges a causal connection between evolution theory and -- take your pick -- communism, socialism, nazism, fascism, racism, sexism, genocide, atheism, pedophilia, illegitimacy rates, drug addiction, school violence, homosexuality, etc., or"
These two categories are the dangerous ones. They probably know enough to know they have no thing of substance to contribute, so they attack what is probably one of the least political pursuits in existence, seeing science as physically helpless and an easy target. The results as opposed to the practictioners won't go away and the rhetoric can turn violent. Their jihad is dangerous to all thinking people.
"* praises the blatantly abusive or moronic posts of others,"
These could very well be DU trolls.
"we must ask ourselves -- is that person merely lost in a sea of ideas he cannot grasp; or is he perhaps the innocent victim of mental abuse as a child; or is he a left-wing operative who comes here to discredit conservatism and to generate discord among us? In other words, is he "
"defective, or deceptive?"
One of the problems with modern medicine is that natural selection can no longer operate as it would unfettered. Dying early from a genetic malady is Natural Selection. We don't let that happen. The weak are protected. I don't think the defective are a major problem - they can be a drag on facilities and materials, though.
Now the deceptive, purposely, knowingly deceptive for political purposes and the gaining of power - those people are very dangerous. And I agree with you that there are some of those here.
Salting FR with quotes to be mined later.
But Sandra O'Connor says that harsh language contributes to a climate of violence and dictatorship. She says that some Republican lawmakers are contributing to this "climate" by their denouncements of certain decisions. (Never mind her inane, "...At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.")
They are offended when people get too uppity and start usurping that which is strictly reserved only to the province of certain judges, you know, things like using harsh language and defining what is and isn't science and all sorts of what not.
Cordially,
Why didn't they?
BEHOLD: the "Science" behind "Intelligent Design":
Behe Cross-X Day 12[emphasis added]
source: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdfp22 line 25 Q. [plaintiffs' attorney] And in fact there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. [Prof. Behe; defendants' expert witness] That is correct, yes.
There you are, folks. One of the leading academic advocates for "Intelligent Design" took the stand as a defense expert witness and under oath told the court that Intelligent Design advocates have not produced a SINGLE peer reviewed article with supporting scientific evidence describing how Intelligent Design of ANY biological system ever took place.
NOT ONE.
EVER.
Dover was ID's Waterloo.
Some people are just too serious when it comes to Ann Coulter, who's in the satire business. Stuck up serious, are you. And Phyllis Schlafly doesn't hate people, but she does hate bad court decisions. So no violent terrorists here, sorry. Call Jihad9-1101.
" Glad to provide you therapy."
It's not therapy. It's entertainment. :)
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.