An "irritate a liberal" article roundup...
Survival of the Fakest (pdf)
Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?
BLACK BOSTON, like black America, is in the midst of a moral and cultural crisis. Forty years after the passage of groundbreaking voting and civil rights legislation, blacks face dire conditions that would have been inconceivable to the generation who came of age during that period.
The view that the state is to be thoroughly secular, and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian - was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not try to expunge every vestige of Christian religion, thought, and values from all facets of public life.
How would you destroy the moral fiber of a nation grounded in moral truth? A nation whose founding document says is predicated on the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights?
Evolutionary theory is based on the faith belief that millions of such fortunate mutations have occurred, sequentially. This is statistically impossible. It makes Darwin's theory more of a religious belief than science.
If there are truly scientists who believe Darwin's theory, then perhaps they could prove their faith by volunteering to become genetic mutants.
I am not holding my breath for any to volunteer.
This is a tacit admission that there is an intelligence in the universe far in advance of us. This is just common sense. To ignore the obvious is not good science, and to preclude research or a scientific theory because we don't like the conclusion is worse.
Intelligent design does not require the espousing of any religious belief. It only recognizes the obvious — that the incredible complexity of biological life is not accidental, but instead shows evidence of intelligent design.
All intelligent design proponents ask is that it be examined on a scientific basis, just as we do now with its competitor, Darwin's theory of evolution.
Your news anchor, Charles Gibson, asserted that the American people are “fairly evenly split” on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Yet he did so in the face of your own organization’s poll showing that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to “same-sex marriage” by a margin of 58 to 36 percent.
Making Gibson’s false claim even more outrageous was the fact that on the same broadcast ABC reported that “forty-five of fifty states have passed either constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.”
Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.
Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.
When I woke on that January morning to the sight of President Clinton wagging his finger on the morning news and saying "I never had sex with that woman," I thought two things: that he was lying and that he would be out of office within two weeks. It was a month later that I realized not only that he might survive his entire term but also that his survival, even for a month, already spoke volumes about the moral criterion for holding power in the United States.
I don't say it as much anymore and yet there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement. Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. They are fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and they sure don't seem to have any clue when it comes to national security.
Don't believe me? Then how 'bout a refresher?
"What one generation allows in moderation," it was once said, "the next accepts in excess." This has certainly been true in America in recent years. Anyone old enough to be raising children has witnessed firsthand the decline of moral standards since the time we were kids. It seems the time-honored notions of courage, honor, sacrifice, responsibility and decency have become a thing of the past.
Let's face it. Public education is a mess. Some may even say it is dead. Many subjects being explored and indoctrinated into our children's minds in the public education system these days doesn't even have anything to do with education at all. Just last week the National Education Association (NEA) was debating whether to embrace or endorse same-sex marriage or not. At first the NEA did decide to endorse same-sex marriage, then changed their minds about it and decided not to. Then, at the last moment, they pulled a John Kerry flip flop and changed their minds again. Now the NEA will endorse same-sex marriage. My question is what does same-sex marriage have to do with kids learning math, science, history, and other such subjects?
The Archbishop of Canterbury last week unveiled plans for a great divorce within the 77-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion – or at least a formal separation from its American cousin, the Episcopal Church. The split that so many Anglicans have anticipated for so long finally appears to be upon the church – and North Texas Episcopalians are leading the way.
And, like many nasty divorces, this one has to do with sex.
It’s important to remember that there is no ban on embryonic stem cells research. Anybody who wants to do it is free to do so, he just can’t do it on the public’s dollar. If it held the promise that proponents claim, top pharmaceutical companies would be vying for chances to throw their research dollars at it. After all, if it worked as promised they could expect to make huge profits. That they don’t see such prospects should tell us something.
The real crisis in American education is that we no longer agree about what a child is. If a child has a soul she requires one kind of education; if she has no soul, it hardly matters what kind of education she receives. If she has a soul, her personal conscience, shaped by transcendent considerations, should guide her in every situation. If she has no soul, the collective will may serve as her compass.
On the Soulful Side: If she has a soul, she has a higher destiny than that of the social order to which she belongs — she out lives it to reach her eternal disposition. When a society understands this it will be structured to help her attain her higher destiny — or at the very least, its institutions will not be allowed to hinder her journey. Hence protections like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
On the Soulless Side: If she has no soul, society may work upon her to shape her to fit its aims — whatever they may be. Her beliefs, allegiances, sexual energies, religious ties, familial bonds; her very mind, will and emotions are all available to be worked upon by the master planners of her education. Enter the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In her essay A Call For Clear Thinking, Ayaan Hirsi Ali urges her fellow Muslims to reject fundamentalism and to embrace the open society
Geneva, June 30, 2006 — UN Watch issued a Report Card (see below ) grading the performance of the UN Human Rights Council's inaugural 2-week session, which has just concluded. "Despite some encouraging indicators," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, "the Council failed to adopt a single statement for the victims of gross atrocities in Darfur and for millions of other victims around the world."
Fathers roughhouse and encourage competition and independence. Mothers are gentle and encourage equity and security. Fathers tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. Mothers tend to avoid risk. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.-Home-
Labels: American Culture, Christianity, Evolution/ID, Islam/Radical Islam, John Kerry, Race-related, Religion, TEC, UN
-Home-