| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2004 08:52:13 PM |
| Object: |
parents' "rights" have got to go |
Humphrey, Nicholas. 21 Feb 1997. "What Shall We Tell The Children?"
Amnesty Lecture, Oxford. Dawkins has called this lecture
[Dawkins]"brilliant"-- see Dawkins, _A Devil's Chaplain_, 118. From
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
the entire "Acknowledgements" section:
I am indebted for several of the ideas here
to James Dwyer, whose critique of the idea of parents'
rights stands as a model of philosophical and
legal reasoning.
Hitchcock, James. 1999. "Wakeup Call" _Arlington Catholic HERALD_.
Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University. At
http://www.catholicherald.com/hitch/99jh/jh991216.htm
Religious schools harm the children enrolled in them. Talking about
sin can make children neurotic and rob them of self-esteem, and strict
discipline inhibits students' freedom, for example, their being able
to "explore their sexuality." These schools are also "sexist" and
especially harm girls.
This being the case, such schools cannot any longer be allowed to
exist, at least in anything like their present form. Government must
begin to supervise their activities. Many schools will be forced to
close, and those which remain will have to make drastic changes or
face legal consequences.
If this seems like an updated Brave New World, it is not merely a
cautionary fantasy about the future. Rather it is a serious argument
recently advanced by a man named James G. Dwyer, in his book Religious
Schools Versus Children's Rights.
His proposal so obviously violates religious freedom as to seem
absurd. But Dwyer has thought of that. The right to conduct schools
belongs to the churches which operate them and to the parents who
enroll their children in them. What, Dwyer asks, about the rights of
children themselves?
Admittedly children do not know that they are being malformed by their
schools, and many of them grow up brainwashed so that they actually
think their educations are good. But if they knew better, as Dwyer
himself does, they would reject religious schools and would demand for
themselves the kind of "freedom" found in the public schools.
Government officials also know better and should choose for the
children what the children should have chosen.
As a law professor Dwyer writes in an almost lifeless academic prose
weirdly at odds with his proposal, which obviously has a lot of strong
feeling behind it. The book almost reads like a treatise on
real-estate transactions. But the scholarly mask drops quite far in
one respect. In "proving" his contentions about the evils of
religious education, he fails to cite even a single scholarly work,
some of them written by non-Catholics, which have found that religious
schools do an excellent job of education. Every one of his sources
turns out to be blatantly anti-religious polemic, much of it generated
by radical feminists.
But the book should be taken seriously. The roots of Dwyer's attitude
are in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, which in the name
of reason mounted a systematic attack on religious belief. While
secularists use the rhetoric of "toleration" to claim a place for
themselves in the public square, they do not concede that religious
belief has any validity and they tolerate it only because they have
to. Their principles demand a conclusion like Dwyer's. (His position
is close to that of Richard Rorty, possibly the most influential
philosopher in America today.)
But Dwyer's book actually does not go far enough. If the government
must "protect" children from the bad influence of religious schools,
should it not also protect them from the influence of their clergy and
even their parents? To do the job effectively, should the government
not monitor the pulpit and the dinner table, to insure that children
are not malformed in those situations? Dwyer does not draw this
totalitarian conclusion, but it is hard to see how he could argue
against it.
In the English-speaking world we have a somewhat inaccurate view of
modern liberalism, because religious freedom has usually been
respected over the past two centuries. But when nineteenth-century
popes expressed disapproval of liberalism, they were responding to a
situation common in Europe, whereby the rhetoric of freedom led
directly to results like those Dwyer advocates.
Dwyer admits that his proposals are not likely to be implemented
anytime soon. But as a law professor he holds a respectable position,
and his book is published by a respectable scholarly press (Cornell
University). Dwyer insists on drawing out the logical inferences of
certain already respectable positions. If the history of the past 35
years teaches anything, it is the speed with which the unthinkable
(abortion) becomes the new dogma. As citizens, religious believers
are mired in passive complacency. But James Dwyer has given us a
wake-up call.
========================================================
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Dawkins: children being [Dawkins]"given religious instruction in
whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable" constitutes
[Dawkins]"mental child abuse"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409100307.a0643a2%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
07 Oct 2004 07:33:12 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410041757.39f6608e@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Admittedly children do not know that they are being malformed by their
schools, and many of them grow up brainwashed so that they actually
think their educations are good. But if they knew better, as Dwyer
himself does, they would reject religious schools and would demand for
themselves the kind of "freedom" found in the public schools.
Government officials also know better and should choose for the
children what the children should have chosen.
When some 16 year old kids leave their homes because they have been sucked
into some non-mainstream cults they are said to be brainwashed by the evil
minions of such cults, immediately the decent citizens of the community go
berserk and sometimes even the police gets involved in trying to rescue the
brainwashed kids, who are seen as victims. But when the same religious
brainwashing goes on at a world-wide scale with 6-year olds at school or at
home most people regard it simply as good old "religious education" and
wholeheartedly agree that it is the most natural thing in the world and of
course it is the inalienable right of the parents to exercise their
prerogative to give the children the education they choose.
Frankly it is hard not to agree with this guy Dwyer and it is easy to see
why Dawkins would agree with his views. Naturally, the fight against
superstition and the early brainwashing of children is not easy at all to
implement, exactly because of the rights of the parents and the inherent
difficulties in preventing the influence of superstition without violating
such rights. As an idea it sounds great, but the problems involved in the
implementation are far too many for it to be feasible.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 05:03:30 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0410041757.39f6608e@posting.google.com>...
Humphrey, Nicholas. 21 Feb 1997. "What Shall We Tell The Children?"
Amnesty Lecture, Oxford. Dawkins has called this lecture
[Dawkins]"brilliant"-- see Dawkins, _A Devil's Chaplain_, 118. From
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
the entire "Acknowledgements" section:
I am indebted for several of the ideas here
to James Dwyer, whose critique of the idea of parents'
rights stands as a model of philosophical and
legal reasoning.
Hitchcock, James. 1999. "Wakeup Call" _Arlington Catholic HERALD_.
Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University. At
http://www.catholicherald.com/hitch/99jh/jh991216.htm
Religious schools harm the children enrolled in them. Talking about
sin can make children neurotic and rob them of self-esteem, and strict
discipline inhibits students' freedom, for example, their being able
to "explore their sexuality." These schools are also "sexist" and
especially harm girls.
This being the case, such schools cannot any longer be allowed to
exist, at least in anything like their present form. Government must
begin to supervise their activities. Many schools will be forced to
close, and those which remain will have to make drastic changes or
face legal consequences.
If this seems like an updated Brave New World, it is not merely a
cautionary fantasy about the future. Rather it is a serious argument
recently advanced by a man named James G. Dwyer, in his book Religious
Schools Versus Children's Rights.
His proposal so obviously violates religious freedom as to seem
absurd. But Dwyer has thought of that. The right to conduct schools
belongs to the churches which operate them and to the parents who
enroll their children in them. What, Dwyer asks, about the rights of
children themselves?
Leave it to some lawyer to dream up new ways to fleece people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "heyref" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 11:43:51 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Humphrey, Nicholas. 21 Feb 1997. "What Shall We Tell The Children?"
[snip]
Religious schools harm the children enrolled in them. Talking about
sin can make children neurotic and rob them of self-esteem, and strict
discipline inhibits students' freedom, for example, their being able
to "explore their sexuality." These schools are also "sexist" and
especially harm girls.
Back in my college days, I was always very happy to make the acquaintance
of young ladies who had attended strict religious schools, either catholic
or fundamentalist. Almost all of them were a whole lot of fun to go out
with. Keep up the good work, I say.
--
H. Brent Howatt | The deluded are always filled with absolutes
heyref@die.spammers.rootshell.be| The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP keys by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 05:43:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 01:52:13 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
If you've got kids in public schools in states with OBE, you have no
'parental rights.'
Now, Mr. Ford, kindly FOAD.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
04 Oct 2004 10:37:30 PM |
|
|
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its sales
volume would increase?
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who demean,
abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably not...civil
suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in this or
that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private affairs. the gov.
can only regulate and should only regulate that which is public...where just
as many short-coming fall.
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 06:04:21 AM |
|
|
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its sales
volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who demean,
abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably not...civil
suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in this or
that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private affairs. the gov.
can only regulate and should only regulate that which is public...where just
as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 10:51:44 AM |
|
|
(david ford) writes:
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Is there anything in Christianity that says such supposed
extremism is out of bounds, either?
Conservatives--the best of them, at least: people like Burke and
Adams--understand that religion is essential to preserving morals,
and that morals are essential to preserving public order, but by
making religion a matter of choice, they created an inversion which
would prove a fatal weakness to their whole political and
philosophical edifice. The net result of this betrayal of tradition
in the name of tradition is the triumph of appetite
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/2000/January/hillsdale.html
I rarely read anything so blatant, but there it is. The fully
committed and honest Christian must admit that there is no room for
religious freedom, no room for choice or principle, and that dissent
cannot and must not be tolerated. "Freedom" exists only within a cage
where one is not free to make moral choices.
I've never understood Christians who are not fully committed to
the hegemony of Jesus Christ, by violence if necessary. If you're not
going to take the book seriously, why don't you just read _How To Win
Friends And Influence People_? Carnegie said everything that you care
about, and he wrote better.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 02:40:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:51:44 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) writes:
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Is there anything in Christianity that says such supposed
extremism is out of bounds, either?
Conservatives--the best of them, at least: people like Burke and
Adams--understand that religion is essential to preserving morals,
and that morals are essential to preserving public order, but by
making religion a matter of choice, they created an inversion which
would prove a fatal weakness to their whole political and
philosophical edifice. The net result of this betrayal of tradition
in the name of tradition is the triumph of appetite
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/2000/January/hillsdale.html
I rarely read anything so blatant, but there it is. The fully
committed and honest Christian must admit that there is no room for
religious freedom, no room for choice or principle, and that dissent
cannot and must not be tolerated. "Freedom" exists only within a cage
where one is not free to make moral choices.
I've never understood Christians who are not fully committed to
the hegemony of Jesus Christ, by violence if necessary. If you're not
going to take the book seriously, why don't you just read _How To Win
Friends And Influence People_? Carnegie said everything that you care
about, and he wrote better.
And it doesn't involve killing people, invading countries, torturing
people or otherwise beggaring a country.
Elf
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 08:15:14 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its
sales volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who
demean, abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably
not...civil suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in
this or that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private
affairs. the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that
which is public...where just as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
That would be 9.3346928%
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
4.6562012991%
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Happy?
Sheesh.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 10:10:41 PM |
|
|
Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95797BA0C7A44cheezits32hotmailcom@129.250.170.85>...
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
[etc.]
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Of course not - there isn't anything "in" atheism at all.
It would seem that atheism is an empty vessel into which one can pour
one's hatred of practitioners of opposing religions.
about James Dwyer, [Humphrey]"whose critique of the idea of parents'
rights stands as a model of philosophical and legal reasoning"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410041757.39f6608e%40posting.google.com
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Dawkins: children being [Dawkins]"given religious instruction in
whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable" constitutes
[Dawkins]"mental child abuse"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409100307.a0643a2%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 11:14:27 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95797BA0C7A44cheezits32hotmailcom@129.250.170.85>...
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
(david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
[etc.]
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is
out of bounds?
No.
Of course not - there isn't anything "in" atheism at all.
It would seem that atheism is an empty vessel into which one can pour
one's hatred of practitioners of opposing religions.
Actually, it's just a state of not believing in gods. HTH.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 01:59:52 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 04:14:27 +0000 (UTC), Cheezits
<cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95797BA0C7A44cheezits32hotmailcom@129.250.170.85>...
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
[etc.]
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is
out of bounds?
No.
Of course not - there isn't anything "in" atheism at all.
It would seem that atheism is an empty vessel into which one can pour
one's hatred of practitioners of opposing religions.
Actually, it's just a state of not believing in gods. HTH.
Sue
Sure, but Ford can't accept that so it has to stay with its pious
lies.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 10:39:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 03:10:41 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Cheezits <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95797BA0C7A44cheezits32hotmailcom@129.250.170.85>...
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
[etc.]
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Of course not - there isn't anything "in" atheism at all.
It would seem that atheism is an empty vessel into which one can pour
one's hatred of practitioners of opposing religions.
I'll leave that to the religous, David, who have shown more contempt for
other religions, and even others of their broader faith groups.
about James Dwyer, [Humphrey]"whose critique of the idea of parents'
rights stands as a model of philosophical and legal reasoning"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410041757.39f6608e%40posting.google.com
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Dawkins: children being [Dawkins]"given religious instruction in
whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable" constitutes
[Dawkins]"mental child abuse"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409100307.a0643a2%40posting.google.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Should we also review the centuries of abuse by Christians upon other
peoples, David?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 02:15:41 PM |
|
|
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95795F0167191rockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its
sales volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who
demean, abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably
not...civil suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in
this or that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private
affairs. the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that
which is public...where just as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
That would be 9.3346928%
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
4.6562012991%
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Happy?
Sheesh.
Chris
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 09:32:06 PM |
|
|
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:892cb437.0410051120.1cc2524a@posting.google.com...
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95795F0167191rockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its
sales volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who
demean, abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably
not...civil suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in
this or that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private
affairs. the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that
which is public...where just as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
That would be 9.3346928%
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
4.6562012991%
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Happy?
Sheesh.
Chris
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
They all know it. They just can't admit it, not even to themselves.
Besides, it's OK to lie for Jeezus. Martin Luther said so. :-)
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "alias" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 12:30:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:15:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95795F0167191rockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
0% anyone that doesn't`t believe all 10 positions is not a
creationist.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 01:59:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:15:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95795F0167191rockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its
sales volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who
demean, abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably
not...civil suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in
this or that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private
affairs. the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that
which is public...where just as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
That would be 9.3346928%
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
4.6562012991%
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Happy?
Sheesh.
Chris
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
No guess involved. All of them.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 02:23:41 PM |
|
|
news:tcg8m01n1mke6dh28fk4kocfhfh40hvrbu@4ax.com by stoney@the.net:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:15:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
[...]
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
No guess involved. All of them.
This fails to distinguish between liars and liees
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 02:15:59 PM |
|
|
Chris Thompson <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95795F0167191rockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410050308.7e6101aa@posting.google.com:
"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:<10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>...
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its
sales volume would increase?
I lack the foreword to James Dwyer's book.
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who
demean, abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably
not...civil suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in
this or that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private
affairs. the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that
which is public...where just as many short-coming fall.
[s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
That would be 9.3346928%
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
4.6562012991%
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
No.
Happy?
Sheesh.
Chris
What percentage of creationists know that they are lying when they
say:
1) You can't be a Christian and believe that evolution has occured
2) There are no inconsistencies in the Bible
3) All evolutionists are atheists
4) The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution
5) Everything in the Bible is supported by the hard sciences
6) There are no transitional forms
7) Creation science is science
8) All the ills of the modern world are caused by the teaching of
evolution in schools
9) Intelligent Design is a scientific alternative to evolution
10) Kent Hovind is a great scientist.
Any guesses?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 10:22:05 PM |
|
|
Eric Root <eroot@swva.net> wrote in message news:<41632468.6030407@swva.net>...
david ford wrote:
(snip)
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Could you research it and get back to us with your results? And I mean
actually research it, not just quote a bunch of stuff?
No, and no.
1866 comment by Darwinian German geologist Friedrich Rolle: "In the
contest between peoples the proverb was and always will be valid:
'Better that I smash you, than you smash me.'"
Rolle is cited in Weikart (2004), 167.
about Weikart's book
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 10:38:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 03:22:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Eric Root <eroot@swva.net> wrote in message news:<41632468.6030407@swva.net>...
david ford wrote:
(snip)
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Could you research it and get back to us with your results? And I mean
actually research it, not just quote a bunch of stuff?
No, and no.
1866 comment by Darwinian German geologist Friedrich Rolle: "In the
contest between peoples the proverb was and always will be valid:
'Better that I smash you, than you smash me.'"
Rolle is cited in Weikart (2004), 167.
about Weikart's book
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
What does this have to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, David?
Or are you indeed, as Maff says, a Christian Taliban who will misrepresent
and intentional commit logical fallacies to make a theory you so clearly
fear and hate look bad? Is this what your god commands, David? Is this
what your religious faith comes down to?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Root" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 05:42:00 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
(snip)
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Could you research it and get back to us with your results? And I mean
actually research it, not just quote a bunch of stuff?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 02:40:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Eric Root <eroot@swva.net>
wrote:
david ford wrote:
(snip)
[s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
of bounds?
Could you research it and get back to us with your results? And I mean
actually research it, not just quote a bunch of stuff?
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA
That takes both work and intellectual capacity.
**
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 11:58:48 AM |
|
|
| [s]"the gov. can only regulate and should only regulate that which is
| public" If the government provides money vouchers to parents, which
| parents then use to help pay for their childrens' attendance at
| religious schools, in your view should the government then have the
| right to [s]"regulate" those schools?
actually, the gov. would only be giving property owners their own money back
to do with as they see fit. so, of course i don't want the gov. telling me
what to do w/ my own money nor should they claim any type of control over
the private enterprise to which i may delegate my money. truth is that the
government can regulate and does regulate whatever it wants...inclusive.
but, to say that they have more jurisdiction to do so based on money-flow is
ludicrous in this context based on the reason just provided.
| > your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
|
| [s]"we atheists also have extremists among us"
| I take it that you consider James Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and
| Dawkins to be [s]"extremists."
take it as you please...but based on your description of the contents w/n
the book, most reasonable people would find the statements made to be
extreme. i don't care who they are individually.
| What percentage of atheists in the United States are, like James
| Dwyer, Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
don't know, don't care, and it doesn't even matter in this thread. what the
book, according to you, states seems rather extreme and incomplete in
perspective. "who's perspective?" making statement about the problems that
may/not exist in one system w/o paying any notice to the failing of the
alternative(s).
| What percentage of atheists in Western Europe are, like James Dwyer,
| Dennett, Humphrey, and Dawkins, [s]"extremists"?
same as above...who gives a rats *****. stats do not interest me much. what
does that number have to do with my oppinion of your diatribe of the
glorious book?
| Is there anything in atheism that says such supposed-extremism is out
| of bounds?
you're an idiot. people are followers...lemmings if you will. your question
begs the inference that, as an atheist, there is a code you try to follow
and "says/doesn't say" what you or i should believe. it's a self-defeating
question. as human beings are social creatures by evolution, extremism is a
form of behavior that is frowned upon but usually nothing more. those
boundries change everyday...maybe what you wrote yesterday won't seem so
extreme. but to me, now, it qualifies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 12:40:00 AM |
|
|
In article <10m4618a3t1fl01@corp.supernews.com>, "steve" <a@b.com>
wrote:
did you cut/copy/paste the forward of the book in hopes that its sales
volume would increase?
i wonder if he considers governmental action for those children who demean,
abase, beat, and otherwise abuse their schoolmates. probably not...civil
suits are what get the dough.
just as i don't want the gov. to tell me that i have to believe in this or
that, i don't want them involved in any aspect of private affairs. the gov.
can only regulate and should only regulate that which is public...where just
as many short-coming fall.
your post just shows that we atheists also have extremists among us.
And if one cult of Christian gets control they are likely to impose
their version of truth and mortality which will greatly disturb the
other cults. (Sociological definition of cult.)
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 12:51:08 AM |
|
|
lol.
people are easy to upset ;^)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 03:36:23 PM |
|
|
no, parents rights should be extended. parents should have the right
to terminate the life of the child up until it's 21st birthday, and
furthermore, they should be able to sentence them to eternal hellfire
and suffering should the littles bastards hurt their feelings by not
swallowing everything they say hook line and sucker. well, that's my
opinion, I mean, if it's right for a god to be an extremist, why can't
we, we're parents too aren't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
05 Oct 2004 10:31:04 PM |
|
|
(L.Roberts) wrote in message news:<3632ef5b.0410051241.2668f500@posting.google.com>...
no, parents rights should be extended. parents should have the right
to terminate the life of the child up until it's 21st birthday,
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave
Macmillan), 312pp. A paragraph on 148:
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also
supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He
condemned the idea that all human life should be
preserved, "even when it is totally worthless." He called
cretinism and microcephaly "decisive proof" for the
physical basis of the soul, since those suffering from these
conditions "spend their entire life at a lower animal stage of
development in their soul's activity." He complained that
not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society,
but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable
illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and
money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine?
To safeguard against abuse, Haeckel proposed that a
commission of physicians make the final decision in each
case, but the individual being reviewed would have no
voice. The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his
scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in
infancy and in adulthood.
about Weikart's book
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
and
furthermore, they should be able to sentence them to eternal hellfire
and suffering should the littles bastards hurt their feelings by not
swallowing everything they say hook line and sucker. well, that's my
opinion, I mean, if it's right for a god to be an extremist, why can't
we, we're parents too aren't we?
[LR]"eternal hellfire"
Bacchiocchi chapter "Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation?"
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
06 Oct 2004 09:45:27 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410051936.3072c59a@posting.google.com...
ozzcat2003@yahoo.com (L.Roberts) wrote in message
news:<3632ef5b.0410051241.2668f500@posting.google.com>...
no, parents rights should be extended. parents should have the right
to terminate the life of the child up until it's 21st birthday,
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave
Macmillan), 312pp. A paragraph on 148:
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also
supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He
condemned the idea that all human life should be
preserved, "even when it is totally worthless." He called
cretinism and microcephaly "decisive proof" for the
physical basis of the soul, since those suffering from these
conditions "spend their entire life at a lower animal stage of
development in their soul's activity." He complained that
not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society,
but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable
illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and
money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine?
To safeguard against abuse, Haeckel proposed that a
commission of physicians make the final decision in each
case, but the individual being reviewed would have no
voice. The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his
scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in
infancy and in adulthood.
What does this have to do with *evolution*?
Why does Weikart call Haeckel a Darwinist?
Why believe Weikart has anything right here?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: parents' "rights" have got to go |
08 Oct 2004 09:14:50 PM |
|
|
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<ck10ni$isb$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410051936.3072c59a@posting.google.com...
ozzcat2003@yahoo.com (L.Roberts) wrote in message news:<3632ef5b.0410051241.2668f500@posting.google.com>...
no, parents rights should be extended. parents should have the right
to terminate the life of the child up until it's 21st birthday,
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave
Macmillan), 312pp. A paragraph on 148:
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and
assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also
supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He
condemned the idea that all human life should be
preserved, "even when it is totally worthless." He called
cretinism and microcephaly "decisive proof" for the
physical basis of the soul, since those suffering from these
conditions "spend their entire life at a lower animal stage of
development in their soul's activity." He complained that
not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society,
but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable
illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and
money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine?
To safeguard against abuse, Haeckel proposed that a
commission of physicians make the final decision in each
case, but the individual being reviewed would have no
voice. The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his
scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in
infancy and in adulthood.
What does this have to do with *evolution*?
Meaning of [TH]"evolution"?
[Haeckel in 1900]"The science which we now call the science of
evolution (in the broadest sense) is, both in its general outline and
in its separate parts, a child of the nineteenth century; it is one of
its most momentous and most brilliant achievements."
in
Dobzhansky, Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and force;
that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and Dawkins reject the
position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
Why does Weikart call Haeckel a Darwinist?
Because Haeckel was a Darwinist. Do you disagree?
Why believe Weikart has anything right here?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
