Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 10:32 AM
349 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, Larni, Tangle (4 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,318 Year: 23,924/21,208 Month: 1,889/2,468 Week: 398/822 Day: 8/50 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
636465
66
6768Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 976 of 1017 (804177)
04-07-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by Dawn Bertot
04-06-2017 1:20 PM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
Thanks for your post, Dawn; I like the way you think.  If naturalistic evolution ("science") is true, then it's implications for morality are profound.   Objective morality can't exist of course and subjective morality can be literally anything you want it to be - it certainly doesn't need to be logical or rational. 

Adolf Hitler did not think it immoral to murder 6 millions Jews; the Khmer Rouge did not think it immoral to to murder a quarter of the population of Cambodia; millions of people in the world don't think it's immoral to murder a foetus.  According to "science", murder is neither right nor wrong, because there are no rules.  No one can say to someone else, "My morality is good and yours is bad.".

  "Science" also says the life of a human being is no more important than the life of any other organism - a mosquito, for example.   So if killing a mosquito is not immoral, then neither is killing a human being.

Appeals to survival are also rendered invalid, because "science" says human life doesn't need to exist ... in fact, no life needs to exist.  If humans don't need to exist, then their morality certainly doesn't. Besides, "science" says that at some point in the distant past, hominoids existed that had no morality at all. So morality isn't necessary for survival. Morality came into existence as the result of mindless, random mutations, so it's as meaningless as the meaningless process that (supposedly) produced it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-06-2017 1:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 978 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2017 6:34 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 979 by Porosity, posted 04-07-2017 6:35 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 982 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-07-2017 9:03 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 977 of 1017 (804178)
04-07-2017 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 972 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2017 4:04 PM


Re: Go Pope
Pope Francis does and says things that send the wrong message and set a bad example for other Catholics. Can't wait for his demise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2017 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5064
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 978 of 1017 (804180)
04-07-2017 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 976 by Dredge
04-07-2017 6:16 PM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
Dredge writes:

Thanks for your post, Dawn; I like the way you think.

Omg. There can't be two of you?!

Objective morality can't exist of course

Right

and subjective morality can be literally anything you want it to be

Wrong

According to "science", murder is neither right nor wrong, because there are no rules.

Wrong. We have lots of rules. We call them laws.

No one can say to someone else, "My morality is good and yours is bad."

Wrong. I call Hitler and the Kmer Rouge's morality bad and so do you.

Science" also says the life of a human being is no more important than the life of any other organism - a mosquito, for example. So if killing a mosquito is not immoral, then neither is killing a human being.

Wrong. "Science" spends quite a lot of its time trying to eradicate mosquitos.

Appeals to survival are also rendered invalid, because "science" says human life doesn't need to exist ... in fact, no life needs to exist. If humans don't need to exist, then their morality certainly doesn't. Besides, "science" says that at some point in the distant past, hominoids existed that had no morality at all. So morality isn't necessary for survival. Morality came into existence as the result of mindless, random mutations, so it's as meaningless as the meaningless process that (supposedly) produced it.

My god you're a confused one aren't you? Instead of conflating what you wrongly think "science" says with some insane pseudo-philosophy, why not just say god is the source of human morality and have done with it?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:16 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Porosity
Member
Posts: 155
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 979 of 1017 (804181)
04-07-2017 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 976 by Dredge
04-07-2017 6:16 PM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
I'm having a hard time believing anyone's this ignorant of a subject.
Are you by any chance an anti-theist trolling us?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:16 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 980 of 1017 (804183)
04-07-2017 6:56 PM


I think what Dredge is saying is that science doesn't -- and can't -- give any standards for morality. Plenty of evolutionists HAVE moral standards, no doubt about that, but they don't come from the science because they can't --that is, where they happen to agree with traditional morality of western civilization. . The phrase "science says" is a way of saying "the implications of science are..." though in fact science-based "moral" standards are often expressed, such as the idea that human life is no more important than animal life, or morality is relative, there is every kind of morality and there is no way to choose one above the other. So Shariah law is as good as the American Constitution. All that comes from the "science" mentality.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 981 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 8:24 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 981 of 1017 (804195)
04-07-2017 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 980 by Faith
04-07-2017 6:56 PM


I think what Dredge is saying is that science doesn't -- and can't -- give any standards for morality.

The question I would have is whether such statements are the least bit meaningful.
Geometry is another subject that does not provide morality standards. But that does not argue against using it to figure out where your property end and your neighbor's begins.

though in fact science-based "moral" standards are often expressed, such as the idea that human life is no more important than animal life, or morality is relative,

Some folks may have such ideas, but they are not required by, nor supported by science anymore than slavery is required by the Bible.

So Shariah law is as good as the American Constitution. All that comes from the "science" mentality.

Total shite.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 6:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 982 of 1017 (804197)
04-07-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 976 by Dredge
04-07-2017 6:16 PM


Whose morality is more moral than whose (and what)?
I have recently grabbed some books (I often look for good deals but I try to grab books with diverse but serious subject matters ) and one is the highly regarded The Moral Animal by Robert Wright which is about the scientific evidence behind the evolution of morality.

Another book I have recently become the owner of (copy of one that is ) is the outstanding book Polio An American Story by a top notch historian Oshinsky.

I was literally pained to see that the Polio story was not the 100% uplifting tale of Americans coming together to find a cure to conquer this horrible illness that killed so many children.

You would find out that FDR made it a mission to raise funds for a Polio clinical camp in a town in Georgia that was meant to be a great salvation for all children that needed care.

It was open from (if I am remembering correctly ) 1930 to 1955.

So far so good?

The problem is that the people of Georgia felt that black children didn't deserve a chance to survive the terrifying disease and the sad truth is that not one single black child ever got treatment in the world renowned facility in Georgia.

The problem with Christian morality (untainted by evolution as it wasn't taught in public schools in those days ) is that there just never really was a cultural firewall, in Christian dominated places, that ensured the type of 'morality' that was centered around defending the human rights of all, but instead it seems that it was essentially a bulwark against line crossings that we now all recognize as NOT moral at all today but simply an expression of a cultural heritage that you and I would rather soon forget.

For all the complaints from fundamentalist Christians about cultural liberalism and relativism, the simple fact is that the much maligned evolutionists seem to get attacked for supporting the types of rights that are based on a fundamental moral expression of a desire to ensure a minimal level (at most) of suffering as opposed to flip flopping all over the place from one time and place by having one set of morals at one point and various others at another. The old so-called traditional morality was more of a judgmental thing than anything else, but it was never anything truely timeless and venerable in any genuine sense.

There is too much artificial selection in the memories of those who see the good old days as some great and moral Golden Age.

I see (often imposed ) poverty and death when I see the exact same 'Christian' culture that many want to see as morally outstanding. We agree that the (coincidentally? ) pre-Evolution-in-Classrooms days were different and - sure enough - did stand out. We even will agree that the racial culture was not only hateful but murderous.

We will disagree on what an ideal world is going to mean when we call it 'moral'.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:16 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 983 of 1017 (804198)
04-07-2017 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 8:24 PM


I think what Dredge is saying is that science doesn't -- and can't -- give any standards for morality.

The question I would have is whether such statements are the least bit meaningful.

Well, what I said needs some correction. As Dredge was saying, science, meaning evolution, which is false science, but anyway, it has promoted a morality, which is really an anti-morality, the destruction of the moral framework of western civilization.

Evolution has taught us that human beings are not "made in the image of God" but animals that evolved from other life forms. Human life is devalued from any notion of specialness, and in fact don't we often hear people telling us that these days? Any such claim of specialness is supposedly just some kind of conceit we impose on the facts.

What's now to tell us that murder is wrong? Many of course FEEL it's wrong but the point is there is no longer any authoritative standard to tell us it is wrong. As a matter of fact it was evolution that inspired the eugenics movement that then inspired Hitler. Well, if it's all just a matter of survival of the fittest, then as intelligent beings we should do away with those that don't further the fitness of the human species, which of course includes anyone suffering from any kind of physical or mental problems, but Sanger included the black race in her assessment as she promoted abortion. Abortion is a form of murder that is just fine by evolution "standards," in fact it's a plus if it weeds out the unfit, that was the original defense, now it's because it promotes women's "rights." The idea that taking a human life could be a "right" is an absurd effect of evolution-based "morality."

Then there is the deterioration of sexual morality, which so many think is a good thing too. All that "freedom." Based on the elimination of the Christianity-based morality of the west, that has made divorce easy, promoted sexual freedom without restriction, adultery, devalues marriage and the nuclear family, and now treats gay marriage as a "right." So now we have single parenting and all its ills, dependence on welfare, kids left to their own devices, etc.l etc. etc.

If we're just animals what's the basis for any kind of self-control? Many hold on to such a morality but its source can't be evolution, it's just something left over from former times, or it's the distorted remnants of the conscience God gave us, and thank God for that much. But why did He need to give us the Moral Law if it was built into us? Because fallen nature distorts it. But what's left of the command to honor parents, not to commit murder, adultery, theft, covetousness, lying? Let alone love God above all else.

God of course was the first to go anyway. There's nothing but material reality, just physical nature. So God is just an illusion, just a power play, just a myth. No more righteous authority and no more absolute morality. How could anyone doubt this? It's expressed here every day.

What's left? Well Nietzsche spelled it out: the twilight of the gods, the trivialization of Christian morality as a slave mentality, and the arrival of the Superman, the Antichrist, the morality of the master.

Geometry is another subject that does not provide morality standards. But that does not argue against using it to figure out where your property end and your neighbor's begins.

Geometry has no implications for morality as evolution does.

though in fact science-based "moral" standards are often expressed, such as the idea that human life is no more important than animal life, or morality is relative,

Some folks may have such ideas, but they are not required by, nor supported by science anymore than slavery is required by the Bible.

See above, evolution devalued humanity and the devaluation of moral standards is the necessary result. And evolutionist thinking dominates all of us, the whole educational system, the whole culture. Whatever remains of the old familiar traditional morality has no real leg to stand on.

So Shariah law is as good as the American Constitution. All that comes from the "science" mentality.

Total shite.

Wish it were. You haven't heard such opinions? They are out there. How they could possibly exist in anything remotely like western civilization is mind=boggling. Proof I think that western civ no longer really exists. What are all these Hollywood type women doing with their strange "feminist" support of wearing the hijab and the burka?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 8:24 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 990 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-08-2017 1:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1000 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-08-2017 4:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 984 of 1017 (804200)
04-07-2017 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:05 PM


Wish it were. You haven't heard such opinions? They are out there

People believe a lot of stupid, wrong, and in many cases, destructive ideas based on their impressions of science and theology. Just about anything including pseudo-scientific claptrap easily satisfies as a point of departure for gullible or evil folks.

Evolution has taught us that human beings are not "made in the image of God" but animals that evolved from other life forms.

That happens to be what the evidence says. And it turns out that you can still follow Jesus while believing in evolution. Apparently something other than science is to blame here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:25 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 986 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:40 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 985 of 1017 (804201)
04-07-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:22 PM


Wish it were. You haven't heard such opinions? They are out there

People believe a lot of stupid, wrong, and in many cases, destructive ideas based on their impressions of science and theology. Just about anything including pseudo-scientific claptrap easily satisfies as a point of departure for gullible or evil folks.

You are of course glossing over the main point, which is that the doctrine of evolution actively destroys traditional morality.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:41 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 986 of 1017 (804203)
04-07-2017 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:22 PM


Evolution has taught us that human beings are not "made in the image of God" but animals that evolved from other life forms.

That happens to be what the evidence says. And it turns out that you can still follow Jesus while believing in evolution. Apparently something other than science is to blame here.

The only way you "can still follow Jesus" while believing evolution is true is by denying a lot of the written Word that Jesus considered to be God's word, and making a "leap" of faith that has no solid ground to land on. Evolution eliminates the whole first eleven chapters of Genesis, which are foundational to salvation in Christ. Beyond that its affinity with liberalism which is also man-centered thinking, is part of the kind of thinking that denies most of the rest of Biblical history as well.

Objectively speaking, it's either the word of God or it's evolution. Compromises are made, but they aren't justifiable by any standard of truth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:22 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:45 PM Faith has responded
 Message 992 by jar, posted 04-08-2017 7:44 AM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 987 of 1017 (804204)
04-07-2017 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 986 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:40 PM


The only way you "can still follow Jesus" while believing evolution is true is by denying a lot of the written Word that Jesus considered to be God's word and making a "leap" of faith that has no ground to land on.

Right. I forgot that you were the arbiter of all things Christian.

Here are some things that you may have forgotten:

All of Christianity, including being salvation itself, requires a leap of faith. And the ground you have to land on are the promises of Jesus himself. Nothing else but God's grace is required.

Remind me not to bring you and your baggage out in the neighborhoods when we talk to sinners.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 986 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 988 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:58 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 988 of 1017 (804206)
04-07-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by NoNukes
04-07-2017 10:45 PM


Here are some things that you may have forgotten:

All of Christianity, including being salvation itself, requires a leap of faith. And the ground you have to land on are the promises of Jesus himself. Nothing else but God's grace is required.

The promises of Jesus along with everything else in the Bible are thrown into doubt by the evolutionist overthrow of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. You hold on to any of it just because you want to, not because there is any ground for it.

Remind me not to bring you and your baggage out in the neighborhoods when we talk to sinners.

Wouldn't want to be part of such an irrational undertaking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2017 12:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9922
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 989 of 1017 (804223)
04-08-2017 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 988 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:58 PM


Wouldn't want to be part of such an irrational undertaking.

On this we can fully agree. But we are way off the topic. Perhaps another place...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 990 of 1017 (804227)
04-08-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 983 by Faith
04-07-2017 10:05 PM


The previous Western American civilization before Evolution brought changes.
quote:

evolution... has promoted a morality... the destruction of the moral framework of western civilization.

Evolution has taught us... Human life is devalued
....
What''s now to tell us that murder is wrong?


We can look into the historic clues to help to answer the question.

From Polio An American Story, which was after the 1896 beginnings of government enforced segregation, in the solid (fundamentalist Christian ) south, and just before the Federal government forced changes.

FDR looks at land in Georgia to purchase to help his Polio.

quote:

Pages

Seeking a cure for Polio he arrived at the tiny Bullochsville (soon to be renamed Warm Springs ) train station in October of 1924..."Really beautiful country, " he said.

Eleanor though otherwise. There was little about Warm Springs that appealed to her beyond Franklin's optimistic dream of recovery.... Rural southern life seemed "hard and poor and ugly. " The racism was appalling... "I can remember driving one day... to buy some chickens, " she wrote in her autobiography, " and my perfect horror when I learned I had to take them home alive... In Warm Springs they ran around our yard, until the cook wrung their necks amid much squawking and put them in the pot.... "
....
Page 39

For FDR, however, there was no turning back. He signed the real estate contract in April 1926. "I had a nice visit from [the Peabodys]," he told his mother, "and it looks as if I bought Warm Springs. " He had -- the inn, the cottages, the springs, and the surrounding acres -- at a cost of $200,000, about two-thirds of his personal fortune... Eleanor did not interfere ...one biographer noted: "For the first time in his life, Franklin had become fully engaged in something that promised to benefit others as well as himself. "
....
On the advice of Basil O'Connor, Roosevelt turned the property into a nonprofit institution, the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation...
....
Page 65
While O'Connor was fond of saying that "no victim of infantile paralysis, regardless of age,race , creed, or color, shall go without care for lack of money, "the fact remained that race did, indeed, play a role. In the era of Jim Crow, the National Foundation did not dare challenge the prevailing color line of the South. When Eleanor Roosevelt suggested that a cabin be built for "Negro polio victims " on the grounds at Warm Springs, she was told that "such a thing would not be desirable in Georgia. "


This is before evolution was allowed to be taught in Georgia. The "undesirable" lives of blacks being saved ran against the Christian culture in the Bible Belt.

This was just before the 1954 school desegregation ruling from the Federal government. In 1960, JFK risked loosing the entire south when he pushed for and got a strong civil rights platform for his party. In the midst of the presidential election, Dr. King was arrested in Georgia and sentenced to 4 months hard labor for simply taking part in a civil rights demonstration.

James Meredith had to get a federal court order to get admitted to the University of Mississippi and as he went to the University, the governor sent state troopers. Bobby Kennedy sent United States marshals to enforce court orders, protect Meredith, and ensure he could register.

A mob attacked the marshals and they begged permission to use gun fire on the mob.

Bobby knew that soldiers were required and JFK sent in thousands of soldiers!

Rights didn't come from the Bible Belt!

They were imposed from the larger body of Americans - that being the non-southern majority that determined the pro rights federal government policymakers. The more anti - creationism, pro-evolution part of the population decided to ensure that rights existed and were enforced.

Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere

We dare defend our rights.

This is the state motto of Alabama.

A state that was almost 50% black during slavery but didn't have rights according to the Bible Belt morality.

The rights for all lives came 100 years after slavery ended.

Blacks were 55% of the population in South Carolina during the Civil War but the unanimous creationism believing culture didn't even think that they had lives that counted anything like their proportion of the population.

Blacks were 57% of the population in Mississippi in the later 1800s and during the Civil War but they weren't counted as worthy of humanity.

We already saw in this thread that the 1967 Loving v Virginia marriage case was based around assaulting the "morality " that 72% of Virginians held - the morality being that God created the races to be separated and unequal in the value of their lives.

Creationism brought "rights" that devalued lives.

One must hope that a moral majority will fight hard for equal rights for ALL.

All men means "all men"

Gays included.

A court had to step in and throw out a 1998 Colorado vote when 54% voted in a referendum to make homosexual acts illegal.

Alabama will claim its rights are being trampled with legal gay marriage but they should have so-called "rights" and "morals" fought against and slayed as these morals have caused lives to end prematurely. Blacks in Alabama only lived to 30 on average all the way to the end of the 1800s. Ditto for Mississippi, where blacks were the majority but didn't count as full human beings.

Faith raised the issue of where the rights and values of what constitutes a "life" come from.

Study history and see if it was the Creationist culture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Faith, posted 04-07-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
636465
66
6768Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017