[Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus, the "evolutionists" are going to save us from the Republicans
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Tue Sep 9 10:54:01 EDT 2008
Stan,
What evidence do you have that would lead you to believe that Palin
would force her religious belief on anyone? My understanding is that
she's all for allowing the individual states to set the standard.
However, that's really beside the point. As you said, anyone's pinpoint
of the exact time is a "religious" matter, or a matter of fath, thus
ANYONE setting pinpointed time would be them foisting their beliefs on
others.
Surely you're not advocating allowing the parents to decide at any time
they choose, up to and including while the "fetus" is still in college?
stan wrote:
> Slim,
>
> As a member of your religious faith, and an ardent fan, if you really plan
> to skip voting (in effect voting for those whose direct religious
> instructions got us into such a waste of our wealth and blood) I would be
> truly saddened. I don't think poorly of John's and Palin's inability to
> live up to their own family values, relying on their gods to forgive them -
> I worry about their health; a topic that seems to be forbidden to address.
> John's cheek is not like that from his prisoner days and his vp could be our
> leader without notice. Then where would this country's founding desire for
> religious freedom end up? The first example is already on the table and
> Catholic Joe has it right: When life starts is a religious opinion and
> should not be one decided by government. You may feel life does not start
> until a breath is taken, the Jews count a number of months before the start,
> the Christens count from the moment the cells begin dividing. Personally I
> don't think it starts until after college. If we allow a Palin to call such
> shots we are on a path Jefferson and all those other smart guys insisted on
> avoiding. McCain told the TV interviewer that if he had his way the first
> judge he would get rid of is Ginsberg and than went down the list of her
> kind. Once this is allowed to start (we already have allowed god onto our
> coins), god (hypocritically speaking) help us - or we will all, eventually,
> become strong advocates of the second amendment.
>
> John, at least is a flip flopper so, if elected, would probably revert to
> many of his reasonable positions. It is Palin I am fearful will give us
> even worse than another 8 years. (And this from a confessed womanizer.)
>
> stan/ec
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Alm" <stevenalm at gmail.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus,the "evolutionists" are going to
> save us from the Republicans
>
>
>
>> Todd,
>>
>> I'm an atheist and I think Palin's a religious kook. And you're right, I
>> won't vote for a religious kook. I haven't studied Darwin very much (and
>> I
>> applaud your research and quotes) but I don't think that's the only rebuke
>> to creationism. Since most of the species of plant and animal life on
>> this
>> earth are in fact extinct, I'd call that "unintelligent design."
>>
>> You said there are only two possibilities as to how life started. Are you
>> sure? How do you know this? What I know is that all religions serve in
>> answering three questions: Where did we come from, how do we live and
>> what
>> happens when we die? Myself, I've answered those questions to my own
>> satisfaction and I don't need the church to tell me anything.
>>
>> Slim
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Todd Tavares <sprocket80 at mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Slim, Wow! are you are going to vote for Obama because he is a Marxist
>>> or not vote for McCain just because Palin is a religious extremist? :^D
>>> Glad you mentioned carbon dating. Carbon has been proven by many
>>> scientists to be a wholly inaccurate method of dating. I am far from
>>> being a scientist...or a religious kook thinking the earth is only a
>>> couple of thousand of years old, but there is just as much scientific
>>> information out there to; while not proving creation is the truth, surely
>>> proves evolution is improbable if not impossible. You are/were an
>>> educator and were taught evolution from a text book, like we all were.
>>> Just because you read something in a text book does not make it truth.
>>> http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Maybe we could all stomach
>>> creationism if we called it a theory too. After all that is what
>>> evolution is...just an unproven theory. There are equally as many
>>> scientists out there who believe they have proven evolution is myth. It
>>> was not Darwin's brainstorm anyway. He thought he could further explain
>>> a centuries old belief; that life arose from non life and everything
>>> sprang from a common ancestor. Modern scientists say it was that first
>>> amino acid or protein chain in the pool of "primordial ooze." I like how
>>> one Nobel prize winner (Biology 1967?) put it:
>>>
>>> "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is
>>> spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural
>>> creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous
>>> generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically
>>> disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with
>>> only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I
>>> will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in
>>> God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
>>> impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
>>>
>>> (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the
>>> University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
>>>
>>> But the most interesting fact is that even Darwin himself realized
>>> evolution was not workable.
>>>
>>> "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
>>> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
>>> amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
>>> aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
>>> confess, absurd in the highest degree possible." (Charles Darwin, "The
>>> origin of species by means of natural selection")
>>>
>>> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
>>> not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
>>> modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Charles Darwin,
>>> "The Origin of Species")
>>>
>>> "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether
>>> I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, Life and
>>> Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
>>>
>>> I could post a few hundred quotes from noted doctors and scientists to
>>> try to "prove" evolution wrong or creation right. I could "do my
>>> homework" as we say here on the list and cite actual findings, but that
>>> is not necessary. Because to dismiss the possibility of God or some other
>>> Intelligent Designer makes it easier to accept our notions that it is ok
>>> to be a homosexual (and not allow me a choice when the schools teach this
>>> gargage to my kids while denying the right to learn about the theory of
>>> creation along with evolution) or that it should be a crime to kill a
>>> tree, but ok to kill an unborn baby. Not to say everyone believing in
>>> evolution is an athiest (or a Democrat), but you have made me see this as
>>> a hinge factor in how I will vote....real issues aside.
>>>
>>> Todd T
>>>
>>> Besides, it is not very PC to say we evolved (were "selected") from apes.
>>> We don't want any of the apes that were not selected to be made to feel
>>> inferior.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Steven Alm"
>>> To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List"
>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Praise Jesus, the Republicans are going to
>>> save us from the Republicans
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:11:17 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ahh, so the "tolerant" lefty has a litmus test for religious beliefs."
>>>
>>> Yes, I require that the candidates be sane, critical thinkers. Palin is
>>> obviously not. I wouldn't say that if she were a Catholic or a Lutheran
>>> but
>>> here's a woman who wants to stare down the whole scientific community and
>>> deny things like carbon 14 dating and declare that the heavens and earth
>>> are
>>> only a few thousand years old. You didn't just call ME an extremist, did
>>> you?
>>>
>>> Brad, you left out the part of Kroon saying that his parishioners should
>>> pray for the completion of the pipeline because at the end of the world,
>>> folks will flock to Alaska as their final refuge.
>>>
>>> I can't believe that was you quoting all that God stuff.
>>>
>>> Slim
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Steven Alm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "She's already demonstrated that she is fully capable of separating her
>>>> personal beliefs from her duties."
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be better if she didn't have to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Herb Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ahh, so the "tolerant" lefty has a litmus test for religious beliefs.
>>>>> She's already demonstrated that she is fully capable of separating her
>>>>> personal beliefs from her duties. She vetoed a bill that would have
>>>>> denied benefits to gay couples.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you extremists keep it up, I'm sure you'll find (or make up)
>>>>> SOMETHING on her.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven Alm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> She's a creationist. Her Assembly of God stuff is a deal breaker for
>>>>>>
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Religious extremism cannot be tolerated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most important legacy the president leaves is the appointment of
>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>> supreme court.
>>>>>> The next pres might appoint as many as three. If Sarabaracuda has
>>>>>>
>>> her
>>>
>>>>> way,
>>>>>
>>>>>> say goodbye to Roe V. Wade and hello to back-ally coat hanger
>>>>>>
>>>>> abortions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Slim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's funny that the candidate that was considered as a
>>>>>>>
>>> running
>>>
>>>>>>> mate for the Democratic choice a few years back, is now being
>>>>>>>
>>> touted as
>>>
>>>>>>> "more of the same". Keep trying though, you guys may find something
>>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly makes Palin a "religious kook", that fact that's she
>>>>>>> religious? I think your colors are beginning to show.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> petelargo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben, thanks for your post. As you may have noticed, there is no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the right-wing extremists. You are wrong, end of discussion and
>>>>>>>>
>>> your
>>>
>>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> idiot to boot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When John McCain won the nomination, Bush disappears overseas. At
>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> RNC,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no Bush, no Cheney (and no mention of them). They know it's a
>>>>>>>>
>>> failed
>>>
>>>>>>>> administration. Where were the solutions. Once again, they are
>>>>>>>>
>>> trying
>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> frame the campaign as an ideology argument rather than an issues
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Today on Face the Nation, "Sis Cum Ba and WHA-LAA", McCain is now
>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> candidate and stated that he will end the incredible corruption in
>>>>>>>> Washington and the failed policies. John McCain has re-defined a
>>>>>>>>
>>> whole
>>>
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> level of flip-flopping on over two dozen key issues within the
>>>>>>>>
>>> last
>>>
>>>>> eight
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> years including his own authored bill that he was for and now
>>>>>>>>
>>> against.
>>>
>>>>>>>> I couldn't give a poop about the experience argument of Palin vs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a waste of time. The entire Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Rove, etc
>>>>>>>> administration could be argued to be the most experienced
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> administration
>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the history of the White House. A huge amount of prior "executive
>>>>>>>> experience". For the first time in recent politics the Republicans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> had
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> power in the white house, judicial, house and senate. How was it
>>>>>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's one thing to drive a tractor trailer up our butts, but when
>>>>>>>>
>>> they
>>>
>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> blowing on the horn while there're doing it, it's really gone too
>>>>>>>>
>>> far.
>>>
>>>>>>>> A big thank you for the memories: the debt, the dead, the twisting
>>>>>>>> intelligence to "sell" us a war on a country that did not attack
>>>>>>>>
>>> us,
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> good ol boy ineffectual cronyism, and finally the shredding of the
>>>>>>>> constitution. With Palin we now we get to have another religious
>>>>>>>>
>>> kook
>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> satisfy the so-called conservative extremist religious right to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> 'bridge'
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> them into this administration and get money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spending 5-10 billion dollars a month on Iraq and kissing chinese
>>>>>>>>
>>> ass
>>>
>>>>>>>> (borrowing the money) of the most Marxist suppressive government
>>>>>>>>
>>> on
>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> planet at this time is a conservative value?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, the biggest hypocrisy of all . That these extremists
>>>>>>>>
>>> actually
>>>
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that they and the republicans are the vanguards of conservatism?
>>>>>>>>
>>> The
>>>
>>>>> two
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> top key pillars of conservatism are less government and government
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> intrusion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and fiscal responsibility. The only administration that walked
>>>>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> talk
>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 50 years was a Democrat that left Bush a 500 billion dollar
>>>>>>>>
>>> surplus.
>>>
>>>>> He
>>>>>
>>>>>>> blew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> threw that in one year and it was prior to 9-11. And there is no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> greater
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> government intrusion that being told what you can or cannot do
>>>>>>>>
>>> with or
>>>
>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into your body. Palin wants privacy for her family decisions, but
>>>>>>>>
>>> she
>>>
>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to legislate publicly what you should do with yours. No thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben Cittadino-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My Dear Culture Warriors;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So....are we having fun yet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, I'd like to thank Richard and Slim for stepping up to join
>>>>>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Assault on the Citadel".
>>>>>>>>> The bullets don't sting as much when the adversary's fire is
>>>>>>>>>
>>> spread
>>>
>>>>> out
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> among more than one target.
>>>>>>>>> In the words first uttered by Gen. "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> "illegitimi
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> non carborundum".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for Tootle, Brad, and Herb, you guys crack me up. I posted
>>>>>>>>>
>>> about
>>>
>>>>>>> Obama
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only because I saw Tootle's post that
>>>>>>>>> suggested anybody supporting Obama was either a marxist, or a
>>>>>>>>>
>>> farm
>>>
>>>>>>> animal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What did he expect when he said that?
>>>>>>>>> Herb, where was your outrage that Tootle would refer to some of
>>>>>>>>>
>>> his
>>>
>>>>>>> fellow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Rhodies" in such derogatry terms? Supporting Obama or McCain
>>>>>>>>> may turn out to be right or wrong, but if we debate policy and
>>>>>>>>>
>>> don't
>>>
>>>>>>>>> engage in mere name-calling this "sailor's bar" could be an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> interesting
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Richard's "geezer" remarks are defensible on several grounds.
>>>>>>>>>
>>> First,
>>>
>>>>> he
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> was provoked. Second, he was defending ME.
>>>>>>>>> Third, it was funny. Calling someone a "marxist" as Tootle did is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> magnitudes worse than gentle kidding of the
>>>>>>>>> "old fart" kind. Surely you see the difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The positions I tried to lay out as reasons some people support
>>>>>>>>>
>>> Obama
>>>
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> intended as an outline of ideology (as Slim noted),
>>>>>>>>> not an argument supporting any position. For example, Herb, you
>>>>>>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>>>>>>> pro-life and will probably vote for McCain/Palin in part for that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research and so I will
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> support
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obama/Biden in part for that reason. It is not hyperbole to point
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> out
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the policy differences that explain my choice. What I know for
>>>>>>>>>
>>> sure
>>>
>>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that marxism and "sheepiness" have nothing to do with it. I have
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> thought
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about all of my positions on the issues I mentioned and am
>>>>>>>>>
>>> completely
>>>
>>>>>>>>> prepared to explain and justify them. In Brad's oft' repeated
>>>>>>>>>
>>> mantra
>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> know I have "done my homework".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Enough for today. The games will be on soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben C. , s/v Susan Kay, Highlands, NJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>> go
>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>>> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list