Lunacy from a racist “Christian”

As much as I despise Ben Stine for making that idiotic Expelled movie that attacks evolution as an inspiration for the Nazi Holocaust and portrays Intelligent Design promoters as martyrs, what’s even worse is when some deranged psycho slams Stine himself for attacking racism as well. I think I’ll just copy and paste the entire piece of nonsense to show what was done. I hope you have your bathroom door open, in case you feel like puking!

http://tarobb.blogspot.com/2008/04/trap-is-set.html

Ben Stein (left) is a Jewish celebrity and actor of sorts and he has set a trap for Christians. It’s the old bate and switch scam. Did you ever set a mouse trap? I am sure you have. Sometimes people will see one of those pesky mice run across the floor and you know it’s time to set a trap.

All kinds of things are caught by setting traps. For the mouse in your kitchen it might be a piece of cheese put carefully in a spring trap. As soon as it reaches for the cheese the trap springs down and kills it. The trap could be a worm on a fish hook or perhaps a piece of meat to catch a stray dog. Of course the proverbial carrot on a stick is generally used to entice someone to become caught in a trap set by a con man.

But is the cheese, worm, meat or carrot a good thing? Is the person who puts out the cheese, carrot etc a friend or are these things being set out to entice and to trap a victim. So Ben Stein has set a trap in the form of a movie to catch Christians and destroy their resistance to race-mixing.

So here is how the trap works. Christians believe in the Bible and therefore believe the earth and the entire universe was created by God. We don’t believe that the universe just popped out of nothing. After all every thing we see about us was made. Whether it is the computer in front of you or the chair you are setting on. Therefore Christians who reject evolution are aware that over the years we have been bombarded with an attack upon our faith, whether it has been an attack on Christmas or removal of prayer from our schools. We have seen our faith trashed on television and in the movies and we have all witnessed those who continually ridicule the Biblical teaching of a creator or as some call intelligent design. And all Christians are aware of the continual battle in our public schools over the teachings of creation and evolution.

Enter Ben Stein

Of course, Ben Stein is not the biggest name in the pecking order of celebrities. But he is big enough! So Stein made a movie to promote creation. Churches and Christians are falling all over them selves to promote this movie. Stein has made appearances all over television to promote his movie. Church bulletins are telling people to see the movie, parents are taking their children to see this wonderful movie that will teach them about God and creation. Churches are organizing youth activities and arranging for group discounts to see the movie that will help bolster their understanding of creation.

BUT Ben Stein is not a Christian and he doesn’t care to hoots about our Christian morals, traditions and certainly not about our Christian God - Jesus Christ. Ben Stein is not a good person doing a good thing for Christianity or creationism.

What did Ben Stein do? He threw out the carrot - the bait - to trap Christians. For 92 minutes Ben Stein is in absolute control. Christians (especially movie going young people) are at his mercy as he promotes his real agenda and his real agenda has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. The real agenda of Ben Stein is to get Christians inside the doors of the theatre and in front of his movie. He did that by persuading Christians that they are going to watch a wonderful Hollywood movie defending creation and demonizing evolution. But the intent is quite the opposite.

Ben Stein takes this opportunity when Christian young people have lowered their defenses and begins to explain that evolution is the foundation of racism. They are told that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the foundation of racial hatred, segregation and prejudice. And as an example he uses Hitler and the National Socialist government of Germany as a perfect example of what can happen when racism gets out of control. According to Stein, Hitler embraced Darwinism and spread the teachings of evolution throughout Germany. Everyone has been taught to hate Hitler and now they are told that at the core of his teachings was white racism which came about through the teachings of Darwin. But just the opposite is true. The teachings of Darwin were rejected by Hitler and schools were not allowed to teach Darwinism or evolution. The teachings of Darwin were spreading in Germany (as they are in this country) but when Hitler was elected chancellor he encouraged the rejection of Darwinism and books which promoted evolution and Darwinism were destroyed.

Now I know that you can go on the internet and find all kinds of sites claiming that Hitler got his racist beliefs from Darwin, but the fact is that Darwin rejected “racism” and worked to end slavery. Would that make an abolitionist a partner with Darwin? Yes, you can find all kinds of people (quoting each other) claiming a Hitler - Darwin connection, but that doesn’t make it true. For example you can find pornography all over the internet also, but that doesn’t make it a wholesome lifestyle.

Did you ever see pictures of book burnings in Germany? Do you know what was in those book burnings - Charles Darwin books and others promoting anti-Christian morals and values.

According to Stein and others like him such as Ken Ham, racism is a by-product of evolution. If you reject evolution then you must also reject racism. According to this devilish teaching interracial marriage is commendable and should even be desired. True Christians are to reject racial integrity as strongly as they reject evolution.

The purpose of this movie is not to defend creationism but to demonstrate how evil white racism is because it is the same as evolution.

Do you want to preserve your racial heritage? If you do, then you are (perhaps unknowingly) supporting evolution. Do you want your son or daughter to marry within your racial family? If so you are a racist! Do you feel more comfortable around white people? If you do then you are a racist! And if you are not careful - you might become a Nazi.

The cure for the evils of evolution is to reject any feelings of racial pride. As a young person, do you date those of another race? If not, then perhaps it is because you are a racist.

The message of the movie is not about creationism but to trap Christians into accepting, tolerating, promoting and engaging in interracial relationships and marriage. After all as Christians we don’t want to promote the evils of Darwin - do we?

The trap has been set - don’t get caught!

——————-

For those of you who are interested in the about at the evil teaching of Racial Reconciliation should get a copy of the book, Racial Reconciliation and the Word of God. The cost is $15. Write to P.O. Box 354, Bergman, AR 72615.

Also we have a new issue of The Crusader going in the mail on Monday. Watch for it. Also don’t forget to listen to Political Watchdog on Stormfront Radio at 9 pm Central time. Go to http://www.stormfront.org/ and click on the red box which says “Listen Here.” Also listen our Sunday morning church service at 12 pm (noon - Central). Go to Stormfront.

I don’t get it. There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or His Apostles that condemns interracial relationships. Indeed, there’s not even a single Biblical quote here by the insane blogger to justify his rant. Stine certainly said nothing favorable about interracial unions in EXPELLED!

Here’s the truth, which condemns the views of both Ben Stine and Thomas Robb, that we ALL must understand:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

Censorship in the name of religious freedom?

I’ve never seen such a blatant attempt at denial of academic freedom! Now, if the people being attacked were committing libel, this lawsuit would make sense. This is a clear example of hypocrisy!

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR080512a

Ninth Circuit to Hear Arguments This Week in UC Berkeley Website Case

City: San Francisco, CA

May 12, 2008 - Pacific Justice Institute will present arguments this week to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging a federally-funded UC Berkeley website which promotes selected religious denominations that support evolution. The lawsuit, filed by PJI in 2005, centers around a website designed by UC Berkeley to help teachers combat so-called misconceptions about evolution. The website tackles the “misconception” that religion and evolution are incompatible by claiming that “most” religious groups have no problem with evolution, and by directing visitors to statements from selected religious groups that support evolution. Meanwhile, the website derides religious beliefs that “contradict science” by teaching six-day creation. The site also warns teachers that student questions which expose the weaknesses of evolution “may be designed to disrupt the learning process” and should not be given the same respect as “legitimate” questions. PJI is arguing that the taxpayer-funded UC Berkeley website unconstitutionally promotes certain religious groups at the expense of others. PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who will be presenting oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday, commented, “Whatever one’s views on the origin of life or the theory of evolution, it is completely inappropriate for the government to declare that some religious denominations are better than others. The Supreme Court has long held that government must not decree what is orthodox in religion, and we are seeking to hold UC Berkeley to that standard.” Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, ‘Government actions that demean a group’s faith clearly express state hostility toward religion and must be contested.”

This is the offending page: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml

The purpose of American public schools is to present an objective view of the world and everything in it. If the schools are not encouraging critical thinking, they are failing in their mission. Truth is more important than any dogma.

We don’t know enough?

I can’t stand anyone who employs a double standard to attack and deny an idea he hates. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debate over global warming.

One of the arguments used by denialists on the issue is, “We don’t know enough about this issue to make changes to our economies that will affect the lives of millions.” There are two problems with that claim. First, the emissions of greenhouse gases we made in the past were done in total ignorance of how they would affect the global climate. Only in the past few decades have we gained enough knowledge to understand how the various factors work together over time to change the climate. Second, the denialists NEVER define when we WOULD have enough knowledge to conclude that man’s pollution must be curbed to stop global warming. Since they haven’t done this, how can their claim that we don’t know enough be justified?

Another claim made by the denialists is that “The movement to stop global warming is a scam to destroy capitalism.” Well, how can anyone know that, since there is no proof that anyone can read the minds of Al Gore and others on his side of the debate? Nor has there been any documentation produced to prove that claim.

Seriously, how can one claim that we don’t know enough about the science of climate change to conclude that humans are the main cause of the problem, yet at the same time claim dogmatically that the efforts to combat global warming are a scam? There is one word to describe such an attitude: HYPOCRISY!

An Evolutionary View of Religion

Considering that most of the opposition to evolution is based on religious bias, it is ironic that evolutionary concepts are most useful for explaining the history of religion. It is common knowledge, for example, that Christianity evolved from Judaism, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism, the Baha’i Faith evolved from Islam, and that Christianity has diversified into hundreds of sects including Roman Catholicism, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Thus religions themselves illustrate the concepts of common ancestry, mutation, and adaptive radiation as well as mass extinctions (many pagan religions died out as Christianity and Islam expanded, leaving behind “fossils” in the form of published records that are today dismissed as “myths”).

And now I wish to dispel one of the most common misconceptions about evolution: That because humans evolved from ape-like animals, that humans are by nature superior to their ape cousins. And that evolution is a ladder of progress in which all decendants are by nature superior to their ancestors. It is ludicrious to suggest that fish are inferior to mammals. Both fish and mammals are animals well adapted to their environments. If they were not, they’d become extinct. Most fish cannot breath air and thus cannot survive out of water, but the reverse is true of most mammals, which would die if they could not breath air. So from a fish’s point of view, a mammal must seem inferior, even the whales, which must also rely on their lungs to breath, not gills. Evolution is all about change, not progress. A fish is merely different from a mammal, period.

Likewise, Judaism is different from Christianity. There is no reason for Christians to think themselves or their faith superior to the Jewish faith, except by their own arrogance. Judaism has been in existence longer than Christianity, but it has also evolved just as Christianity has. For a Christian to convert to Judaism is not to take a “backward step”, merely to adopt a different set of teachings.

Thus, I totally reject the Baha’i concept of “Progressive Revelation” that implies that the Baha’i Faith is the supreme religion because it came after all the others, and that other religions are valid but destined to be replaced by the Baha’i Faith. Must we assume that because mammals came later than fish, they are destined to replace all fish? NO, that is nonsense! In my view all religions must be seen as equal because all of them have evolved and adapted to their environment. Until this is understood by nearly everyone, wars and discrimination based on religious bigotry will remain a serious threat.

PZ Myers fan here!

I am a regular reader of the blog by PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

One of his latest postings, and some of the comments following it, made me nearly die laughing! Myers slams one of his Creationist opponents and the punchlines from his fans just kept coming in!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/i_get_email_14.php

The comments I especially like include:

I think the surest sign that Armitage is horrible at science is the fact that you critiqued one of his papers and he essentially offers his CV as a defense. An actual scientist would realize that each paper is either good or bad on its own merit, not his. I don’t care if he found a grand unified theory, that paper was garbage, and it deserves no respect because he may have published real research before.

Posted by: Jim RL | April 5, 2008 11:18 AM

I never cease to be amused by the number of times that these creo-drones mistake your giddy amusement with being lividly angry. I’d hate to see these people at a comedy show. “Hello 911! The man next to me is smiling from ear to ear and clutching his sides in laughter! I’m almost certain he’s about to kill someone in his blind rage!”

Posted by: HumanisticJones | April 5, 2008 11:37 AM

Putrid Zany (you KNOW we’re going to call you that from now on), I didn’t know you had converted to paganism! What form, if I may ask? Which of the many sets of recognized deistic pantheons do you believe in, or are you a monotheistic (with or without the dual/male-female nature)?

Apparently, if you’re not Christian, it doesn’t matter what you are - pagans and atheists are equally bad.

Posted by: Seamyst | April 5, 2008 12:14 PM

But don’t be angry - Paul said to count it all joy when men (pagans?) revile you.

No, it was just men… because NOBODY liked Paul. On one memorable occasion, a governor (I forget of what place) kept him in prison as a favor to the Jews and the Christians. One has the impression that both appreciated it.

This is just another example of how Paul ruined Xianity. Without Paul, there would at least be a core doctrine that was moderately respectable. Without Paul, we wouldn’t have to deal with a lot of the crap that we do. It was Paul that contradicted the words of Christ so as to suggest that any form of biblical literalism could be warranted. Paul is entirely responsible for the punitive attitude toward sex and contraception (along with Augustine), and for the mess with the gays.

One can almost think that Paul was thinking, “Gosh, I sure hate those Xians. How can I totally screw up their religion? I know! I’ll pretend to convert!”

Ever gotten into an argument with one of those “God hates Gays/Libertines/Shellfish/Etc” street preachers? Try challenging them to quote something from the new testament that isn’t Paul. They can’t find anything. Nothing, bupkis. They’re going on Leviticus and Corinthians.

Gawd. Paul. He’s comparing himself to Paul. How… surprisingly apt.

Posted by: lytefoot | April 5, 2008 12:17 PM

“Also, he can’t even tell an atheist from a pagan?”

Having been part of that life at one point, I know that “pagan” is the catch-all word many fundamentalist Christians use to describe people who are not “saved.” Doesn’t matter of they’re describing an atheist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or what have you — they’re all “pagans.” (Among the real hardcore fundies, even Catholics and Mormons are pagans.)

Posted by: Phil | April 5, 2008 12:17 PM

You’ve got to love the continual presentation of his credentials like a cat dropping a dead rat at your feet.

So impressive too, an M.S. AND an Ed.S. from the prestigious Institute for Creation Research Graduate School. Worthy to be added to every email. I expect he has it embroidered on his underpants too.

Posted by: Quidam | April 5, 2008 12:31 PM

The all men revile you thing is Matthew 5:11.

I’ve long since stopped being surprised when people who throw bible quotes around actually have only the vaguest idea of what is in the damn thing.

Posted by: Don | April 5, 2008 12:54 PM

The books about astronomy,
Like Acts and Deutoronomy,
Are but a partial list of those in which I have reliance.
Biology’s dependent on
The First and Second books of John
And Genesis and Exodus? There’s nothing there but science.
The physicist who never fudges
Follows Joshua and Judges;
Daniel and Ezekiel show molar calculations.
In First and Second Timothy,
Electron-scan microscopy
Completes the compound microscopic treatment in Galatians.
The Chronicles of Higher Ed–
Both First and Second, which I’ve read,
Confirm for me the value of an honest education.
An education such as this,
That starts, of course, in Genesis,
And doesn’t give a Ph. D. ’til after Revelation.

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/04/bible-as-textbook.html

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 5, 2008 2:31 PM

“Jesus is like my scanning electron microscope.”
So, your scanning electron microscope exists only in your imagination then, right?

Posted by: Milo Johnson | April 5, 2008 3:20 PM

I’m still laughing, so I’ll just publish this and then lie down while my sides continue to ache!

Economic growth vs. economic justice

One of my biggest concerns is the blatant inequality of wealth in many societies and how that often translates into total injustice. Those who are raised in wealthy families tend to remain wealthy. And where there is wealth, there is also power. Meanwhile, those who come from poor families tend to remain poor. Because there are a finite range of resources in any society, those who already have wealth also have access to the highest technologies sooner than others, thus enabling them to maintain and even increase their wealth still further at the expense of the impoverished. And I’m not just talking about individuals, but about nations as well. The United States is far, far richer than Afghanistan  and will probably always remain so. Thus, while America is on the cutting edge of technology, the people of Afghanistan still live largely like they did a century ago, because they simply cannot afford the latest computers, cars, or private jets.In a capitalist economic system without any restraints, the rich will get richer and the poor remain poor until finally you have a few ultra rich and masses of the poor that will never have a chance to get better. And because cash flow then drops to minimal levels due to the tendency of the rich to hoard their fiances while the poor cannot even spend much money, the capitalist system collapses under its own weight.Karl Marx forsaw this. His mistake was to assume there was no way to prevent this and it was actually a good thing. Wrong! A restrained capitalism in which the government taxes the rich highly to prevent them accumulating too much wealth for themselves and does not tax the poor at all is both just and more productive in the long run. That is why I cringe whenever I heard about President Bush taking credit for his tax cuts for the wealthy helping the economy grow. Such growth will not last forever, of course. I’d rather have economic JUSTICE and STABILITY rather than merely GROWTH.

Why did Communism fail?

When I look at Communism, I see a system that had entirely good intentions in the beginning but also had flaws that became more and more obvious as it was put into practice. It is ironic to me that the proposed solution to the abuses of capitalism, resulting as they did from the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, was to take that wealth and power and transfer it all to the GOVERNMENT! That’s a bit like treating a burn by putting the burn victim into boiling water. So the whole point of Communism was a farce from the start, but those who followed it acted like religious fanatics, never allowing its contradictions to really impact their minds until it was too late. Yet they claimed to be atheists? What HYPOCRITES!!!

Communism failed because it had the same results as extreme capitalism, concentrating power in the hands of a few elitists. If the cure is as bad as the disease, why bother?

A critical test of common descent (evolution)

While there are ways to experimentally test the process of evolution, known as natural selection, by mimicking it artificially, ways to test the historical issue of evolution, known as common descent, must rely on making observations and making predictions of the outcome of those observations.Inside the cells of all Eukaryota (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) are organelles called mitochondria. Likewise, inside the cells of plants are organelles called chloroplasts. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and are thought to be descended from bacteria that took up residence inside the larger cells. In any case, the DNA in those organelles are completely different from the DNA in the nuclei of those same cells.

We can take the DNA of cell nuclei and check them to see if the differences between those of various organisms can enable us for build a family tree of those organisms. The more similar their nuclear DNA is, the more closely related they are. But since mitochondria and chloroplasts also have DNA, we could also take them and check to see if we could build up a family tree that is the same as the one we would build up with the nuclear DNA.

Indeed, there is no reason, if all life was produced by a single recent act of creation, for the DNA of the mitochondria of all animals to be significantly different from each other. So if I was a Creationist, especially of the young Earth kind, I would predict that it would be impossible to make a family tree from mitochondria DNA, or if I did, it would be completely different from the nuclear DNA. But if I was testing the theory of common decent, I would predict that the readings in animals of both their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA would produce the SAME FAMILY TREE in all cases! This would make perfect sense if the mitochondria and the rest of the cells have been evolving together ever since they first came together over a billion years ago.

Mitochondrial DNA is already used in forensics to determine who the mother of a child is, while nuclear DNA must be used to determine the father of that same child. This would only be an extension of that function, since the parents of the child must be of the same species, or at least very closely related, to even produce offspring at all.

Fired from a hosting job for NO LOGICAL REASON!

For the sake of privacy, I’m leaving real personal names completely out of this. Instead, I will use pseudonyms.

This past Sunday, I was abruptly fired from a hosting position in an internet discussion group, which I’ll call Defending Rights . I was not informed of the action before I discovered it by going to Defending Rights to do my hosting duties there and as far as I knew I had done absolutely nothing to merit the dismissal. So I sent a note to the owner of the group, Maria, asking her to explain her actions. Then she accused me of betraying her because I had said nothing in her defense in another group, Bookworms, owned by an enemy of hers (Paul) , even though I had been a member of Bookworms for a short time! But in fact, I had already left Bookworms in disgust and told my friends exactly why. And Maria knew about that.

Maybe she was confused because I seemed disloyal to her by not attacking Paul on his own territory. But in fact such an action, if I had taken it, would have been completely against my previously stated principles. First, I must refer the reader to one of my earlier blogs:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/07/21/an-honorable-skeptic/

That statement says, among other things: “Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of honor, which I hold more dear to me than my life. It allows for no exceptions whatsoever….  I choose my friends according to my ideals; I never bend my ideals for the sake of keeping friends.” (emphasis mine)

Indeed, I meant that and I still do. I cannot compromise myself even to defend my friends if they are being attacked on someone else’s territory. That someone else would simply delete my posts and block me from the group, making my efforts useless.

A long time ago, I became disgusted by the habit of certain Conservative agitators breaking into groups made for Liberal Democrats and attacking them. I wrote a blog in protest against such abuses:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/69110

Two critical points I wish to make:
First, I think the best way to punish a bad host or owner is to not only abandon the group (if you haven’t been blocked from it already), but to create a group of your own on the same subject and then invite all your like-minded friends to it in order to shame the bad host.
 
Second, different groups exist for different purposes. For example, if there is a group that has a title like Christian Faith and Bible Study, and an atheist joins the group merely to bash Christianity, I feel strongly that it is the right and the duty of the hosts of that group to block the atheist………and I’m not even Christian!
If you wish to debate politics or religion, look for groups that have that as its specific purpose. It sickens me when I see members of one party/religion invading a group made for another party/religion to start fights. That strikes me as dishonorable.
So when I hear someone complain that they were kicked out of a group merely for expressing a dissenting opinion, I think, “Didn’t this fool have sense enough to EXPECT such treatment?”  If you break into my house to start an argument with me and I didn’t invite you there for the purpose of the argument, I DO have the legal right to not only throw you off my property, but to have you ARRESTED for trespassing!

Soon after writing that blog, it occured to me that the same standards I wish others to have must also apply to myself. So I said nothing to Paul in his own group about his attacks on Maria. However, when I saw him attacking her in another group owned by neither myself, Maria, or Paul, which I’ll call Ass Kickers, I went after him with a vengeance and spit a gallon of venom at him over it. And I vowed never to return to Bookworms.

Maria and I were friends for years and I thought she knew me better than it seems she did. I’m not a hypocrite, even though Paul called me one, and I guess if my being fired from a hosting job for not contradicting my standards is what I must endure, so be it.

A Real Skeptic vs. a Denialist

A skeptic is defined as someone who reserves judgement on an issue until enough evidence is found to support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt and also clearly defines what would make him disbelieve a claim. This is scientific thinking.

By contrast, a denialist has no such defined limits, either of belief or disbelief. The denialist starts from a position of dogma, asserting opposition to an idea by presenting a contrary idea as absolute truth and interpreting all evidence according to that unalterable dogma, rather than draw conclusions based only on the evidence. This is the opposite of scientific thinking, although denialists often use scientific terminology to make their positions seem legitimate to fool the ignorant.

Denialism vs geuine skepticism is found in debates over evolution vs. Creationism, global warming, religion, and politics. If there were no denialists, most of those debates would have either ended long ago, or would be a lot more cordial than they tend to be.