By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2017
For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.
Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.
A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.
Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.
The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.
The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.
Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Friday, June 9, 2017
Bernie Sanders Commits Impeachable Offense
By Tom Rhodes, 6/9/2017
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Obama Promoted to IPCC Papal Astronomer
By Tom Rhodes, 5/28/2015
President Obama, has replaced Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology’s Pope. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology is more commonly known as the IPCC. There next Synod is scheduled for the end of this year where the faithful will meet to determine how best to convert the unwashed masses and force them to ignore the scientific method and accept their dictates as true. Al Gore was removed from his office of IPCC Papal Astronomer when the Inconvenient Truth of his prediction that the North West Passage would be ice free failed to manifest.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology in 2013makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. IPCC Papal Astronomer, President Obama, has declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied," further saying, "an urgent and growing threat to our national security.". Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy. Papal Astronomer, President Obama, condemned heretics accusing them being a danger to the security of the republic saying, "Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. "
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including half of all meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today B.H. Obama is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the IPCC pope; crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The progressive faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs are using “climate change” as an excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC’s official astronomer, President Obama, you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
President Obama, has replaced Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology’s Pope. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology is more commonly known as the IPCC. There next Synod is scheduled for the end of this year where the faithful will meet to determine how best to convert the unwashed masses and force them to ignore the scientific method and accept their dictates as true. Al Gore was removed from his office of IPCC Papal Astronomer when the Inconvenient Truth of his prediction that the North West Passage would be ice free failed to manifest.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology in 2013makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. IPCC Papal Astronomer, President Obama, has declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied," further saying, "an urgent and growing threat to our national security.". Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy. Papal Astronomer, President Obama, condemned heretics accusing them being a danger to the security of the republic saying, "Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. "
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including half of all meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today B.H. Obama is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the IPCC pope; crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The progressive faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs are using “climate change” as an excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC’s official astronomer, President Obama, you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Information Theory
By Tom Rhodes, 2/3/2015
Ever hear of Information Theory? It’s not terribly new theory, but has become more robust as we’ve progressed through the information age. You will notice descriptions of Information Theory are based in physics, mathematics, and biology: Wikipedia describes information theory as being “based on probability theory and statistics. The most important quantities of information are entropy, the information in a random variable, and mutual information, the amount of information in common between two random variables.” You can take MIT’s course on it for free: Information Theory Course at MIT
From Information Theory we get Bioinformatics, “an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines computer science, statistics, mathematics, and engineering to study and process biological data.” Again from Wikipedia (I know not the best source but good enough for this).
Bioinformatics is both an umbrella term for the body of biological studies that use computer programming as part of their methodology, as well as a reference to specific analysis "pipelines" that are repeatedly used, particularly in the fields of genetics and genomics. Common uses of bioinformatics include the identification of candidate genes and nucleotides (SNPs). Often, such identification is made with the aim of better understanding the genetic basis of disease, unique adaptations, desirable properties (esp. in agricultural species), or differences between populations. In a less formal way, bioinformatics also tries to understand the organisational principles within nucleic acid and protein sequences.
OK, so studying biology and information are basically the same kind of study; the study of the transmission of data. Like all info, genetic or computer, information suffers from degradation a.k.a. entropy. When looking at information transfer we work units of information. Be it computers information, or language, or even biology the basic unit is a word. The alphabet may be different, bits, bytes, nitrogenous base, etc. But information is created from small bits, that create larger bits, that create complete ideas, that make up wholes. Decoding these words can make something. A recipe for Ice Cream isn’t actually ice cream, and DNA for a fish isn’t the fish, but both are the information required to make those items.
Consider the “net”, in 2013, the World Wide Web is estimated to have reached at least 4 zettabytes (write a 4 and put zeros after it). Now mutations in information are possible, with that much information you would expect to see at least one web page that was created from information mutation that had new information on it that was created by random chance not some artificial intelligence creating that information. Not the formation of a web site by a program designed to transmit information, but the creation of new information through random mutation. Every webpage with the zettabytes of information on the web, we know was designed by some intelligence, good web page, 404 error web page, bad web page, wrong web page, ugly web page, inspiring web page, every web page was designed, period. Information has never been observed to be created without design, period. Clearly the creation of real information by a non-intelligent source has never been observed, even with astronomical chances for it to have happened. Oh every time somebody queries google it generates a new web page, but regardless of how many inputs or programmatic mutations, google never produces obamacare.org. Call that natural variation within a program. A random informational transmission error (mutation) may In fact return a 404 page not found error (fatal error that returns nothing), but it doesn’t return new information generated randomly.
Cellular life is the most complex information system ever observed. The information in a living cell makes the internet look like a couple of Lego blocks. As with the interweb there has never been observed the creation of new information without a designer.
Back to words, or specifically the term word. In language a word is a unit of information, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. In computing a word is a term for the natural unit of data used by a particular processor design, basically a group of digits (binary or decimal) that are handled as a unit by the instruction set or the hardware of the processor. In biology it can be referred to as a gene.
You can’t have information nor transmit it without a designer of that information. Information has never nor can it ever be created without a creator. In fact it cannot be used without a method, or language, to interpret it. Random sounds can’t transmit information, speech and language can. Random electrical pulses can’t transmit or create information, computer programs created with language can. DNA, the recipe for a life, cannot transmit itself, RNA as part of a vastly complex designed system, that looks remarkably like a programed molecular robotic system can. Like language, or computer programs, such a system is required to read and process the information before information can exist.
The new words we have now, like bioinformatics, did not originate in randomness, they were created. You can say the word, bioinformatics, evolved. That would not be improper or wrong. Just as you can observe and identify the fact that computers and computer programs have evolved. Language and computers evolved from the creation of new information. They did not evolve from random, arbitrary, uncontrolled sources. The evolved by design. Evolution of anything is caused by design changes. Some design changes are good like the creation of the new word “scientological “, some are just awful, like the creation of the new word “twerk.” There can be no doubt both of those new words transmit information and originated from some intellect. You may question the quality of that intellect, but not the fact that it is an intellect.
We’ve engineered new genes, created GMO’s, used animal husbandry to create miniature poodles and St. Bernards from the same original program (wolf). We’ve never been able to, nor observed a living organism becoming something completely different. What’s in common is an intellect to design the changes, but no wolf to cat modifications yet. We’re getting better at manipulating the program of life. But the more we learn, the more we learn that it is a program, with a language, and as such was designed.
I read about it a long time ago, before we had words like bioinformatics. Even before Information Theory, it was explained. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Word
Ever hear of Information Theory? It’s not terribly new theory, but has become more robust as we’ve progressed through the information age. You will notice descriptions of Information Theory are based in physics, mathematics, and biology: Wikipedia describes information theory as being “based on probability theory and statistics. The most important quantities of information are entropy, the information in a random variable, and mutual information, the amount of information in common between two random variables.” You can take MIT’s course on it for free: Information Theory Course at MIT
From Information Theory we get Bioinformatics, “an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines computer science, statistics, mathematics, and engineering to study and process biological data.” Again from Wikipedia (I know not the best source but good enough for this).
Bioinformatics is both an umbrella term for the body of biological studies that use computer programming as part of their methodology, as well as a reference to specific analysis "pipelines" that are repeatedly used, particularly in the fields of genetics and genomics. Common uses of bioinformatics include the identification of candidate genes and nucleotides (SNPs). Often, such identification is made with the aim of better understanding the genetic basis of disease, unique adaptations, desirable properties (esp. in agricultural species), or differences between populations. In a less formal way, bioinformatics also tries to understand the organisational principles within nucleic acid and protein sequences.
OK, so studying biology and information are basically the same kind of study; the study of the transmission of data. Like all info, genetic or computer, information suffers from degradation a.k.a. entropy. When looking at information transfer we work units of information. Be it computers information, or language, or even biology the basic unit is a word. The alphabet may be different, bits, bytes, nitrogenous base, etc. But information is created from small bits, that create larger bits, that create complete ideas, that make up wholes. Decoding these words can make something. A recipe for Ice Cream isn’t actually ice cream, and DNA for a fish isn’t the fish, but both are the information required to make those items.
Consider the “net”, in 2013, the World Wide Web is estimated to have reached at least 4 zettabytes (write a 4 and put zeros after it). Now mutations in information are possible, with that much information you would expect to see at least one web page that was created from information mutation that had new information on it that was created by random chance not some artificial intelligence creating that information. Not the formation of a web site by a program designed to transmit information, but the creation of new information through random mutation. Every webpage with the zettabytes of information on the web, we know was designed by some intelligence, good web page, 404 error web page, bad web page, wrong web page, ugly web page, inspiring web page, every web page was designed, period. Information has never been observed to be created without design, period. Clearly the creation of real information by a non-intelligent source has never been observed, even with astronomical chances for it to have happened. Oh every time somebody queries google it generates a new web page, but regardless of how many inputs or programmatic mutations, google never produces obamacare.org. Call that natural variation within a program. A random informational transmission error (mutation) may In fact return a 404 page not found error (fatal error that returns nothing), but it doesn’t return new information generated randomly.
Cellular life is the most complex information system ever observed. The information in a living cell makes the internet look like a couple of Lego blocks. As with the interweb there has never been observed the creation of new information without a designer.
Back to words, or specifically the term word. In language a word is a unit of information, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. In computing a word is a term for the natural unit of data used by a particular processor design, basically a group of digits (binary or decimal) that are handled as a unit by the instruction set or the hardware of the processor. In biology it can be referred to as a gene.
You can’t have information nor transmit it without a designer of that information. Information has never nor can it ever be created without a creator. In fact it cannot be used without a method, or language, to interpret it. Random sounds can’t transmit information, speech and language can. Random electrical pulses can’t transmit or create information, computer programs created with language can. DNA, the recipe for a life, cannot transmit itself, RNA as part of a vastly complex designed system, that looks remarkably like a programed molecular robotic system can. Like language, or computer programs, such a system is required to read and process the information before information can exist.
The new words we have now, like bioinformatics, did not originate in randomness, they were created. You can say the word, bioinformatics, evolved. That would not be improper or wrong. Just as you can observe and identify the fact that computers and computer programs have evolved. Language and computers evolved from the creation of new information. They did not evolve from random, arbitrary, uncontrolled sources. The evolved by design. Evolution of anything is caused by design changes. Some design changes are good like the creation of the new word “scientological “, some are just awful, like the creation of the new word “twerk.” There can be no doubt both of those new words transmit information and originated from some intellect. You may question the quality of that intellect, but not the fact that it is an intellect.
We’ve engineered new genes, created GMO’s, used animal husbandry to create miniature poodles and St. Bernards from the same original program (wolf). We’ve never been able to, nor observed a living organism becoming something completely different. What’s in common is an intellect to design the changes, but no wolf to cat modifications yet. We’re getting better at manipulating the program of life. But the more we learn, the more we learn that it is a program, with a language, and as such was designed.
I read about it a long time ago, before we had words like bioinformatics. Even before Information Theory, it was explained. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Word
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Libertarianism, Religion, and the DH
By Tom Rhodes, 8/20/2014
Libertarians are a tolerant lot, except when it comes to religion. For some reason many, not all, and not even a majority, but many, are under the delusion that expressing and practicing and having your political actions influenced by any religion other than atheism is somehow not libertarian. Many libertarians actually support “Freedom From Religion.”
We really need to give everybody some Big-Boy pants, and teach the whiners to learn to focus their efforts on something productive. The anti-religion crowd needs to go back and read the constitution, and re-read, over and over again, the First Amendment. The First amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not protect atheists from exposure to other religion. In fact any elected official, or government official, or employee, so long as they are not forcing others to believe as they do have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and express religious viewpoints even at government events.
At some point those whose religion is atheism, atheists, must come to an understanding that they must abide by the same rules they attempt to use to control others. Atheism is a religion. A Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheism like Christianity, Islam, or the belief in the Greek Gods of Old, or the Norse God Oden, has a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife. It’s not like baseball and having the righteous belief that the designated hitter is an abomination before all that is true, good, and honorable in baseball (a belief all morally righteous, intelligent, and fair thinking people share). Because atheism has a set of generally agreed upon beliefs by a number of persons concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife it must rationally be considered a religion or sect of some kind.
The right to say there is no god or supernatural has no precedence nor priority over the right to say there is only one God, or many gods. Even among elected or government employed people. Unless they force you to believe as they do, or make your belief a basis of how you are treated under the law, rules, regulations, etc. Everybody is free to express their religion, even atheists, as they see fit. It is only when religion is used to determine how a law, rule, regulation, or something the government does, is there a problem.
Our country is being torn apart and destroyed by the continuous broadening of the idea and scope of “infringement” on the rights of others. Catering to atheists is destroying the country. We need to return to the American philosophy of "live and let live." Endowing hypersensitive crybabies with the power to censor those who don’t share their religion is upsetting the equilibrium that liberty and justice for all created, and has proven to work extremely well for an long time.
The Libertarian Party of Florida is not a religion, it has no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife. The basic beliefs of the LPF are irrelevant to the existence or not of a divine being. Like all political parties the LP is an organization that exists to gain political power. The LP welcome people of any and all beliefs so long as you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or use of fraud to achieve social or political goals.
Now if you believe that there should be different rules, laws, regulations, or courts for people of different religions you clearly don’t share the beliefs and goals of the LP and should consider another political party. If you’re an atheist who wants to eliminate religious expression in public, eliminate evangelism, censor or silence those who don’t share your beliefs, and are willing to institute laws and use the force of government to be “free from religion” you probably shouldn’t be in the LP. You do not have a right to be free from exposure to other people’s religions. If you believe government schools should be able to censor graduation speeches so that valedictorians don’t “offend” people with their “Ode to Oden” or praise for Christ, for getting them through high school, you probably don’t belong in the LP, that is clearly the exercise of rights the government is restrained from infringing upon.
The LPF exists to gain political power in order to establish a society based on personal liberty and responsibility—a society in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. The LPF believes the most desirable method of organizing society is the natural order that arises when the unalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty and property ownership are respected and protected. If your religion doesn’t share that belief you probably shouldn’t be in the LPF. The LPF believes that people have the right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the equal rights of others. Libertarians welcome the peace, prosperity, and diversity that freedom brings.
__________________________
Oh on a side note, if you believe the DH is a good rule, you are clearly a statist pig who has disavowed even pretense of holding libertarian beliefs, hate equality under the rules, and trust in evil egalitarianism. The idea that because a pitcher is notoriously bad at hitting the ball, they deserve to be exempt from the rules other players must abide; allowing some other person to play in their place is clearly unequal treatment that offers special treatment for some players and not others. The DH is like having somebody else take the math part of your ACT, because your good in english but bad in math.The DH is almost as evil as water cooling on a Harley. The DH is an abomination to baseball, libertarianism, freedom, truth, the American Way, and all that is good and right in the world. Society tolerating the DH is the canary in the bird cage, showing we are headed to totalitarianism. Although religion should not be a litmus test against being in the LPF, maybe we should add a platform plank to disqualify all people who believe in the DH not only from the LPF but from the voter rolls as well.
Of course my opinion on baseball might be a tad extreme, even for Libertarians, but unlike politics, baseball is important.
Libertarians are a tolerant lot, except when it comes to religion. For some reason many, not all, and not even a majority, but many, are under the delusion that expressing and practicing and having your political actions influenced by any religion other than atheism is somehow not libertarian. Many libertarians actually support “Freedom From Religion.”
We really need to give everybody some Big-Boy pants, and teach the whiners to learn to focus their efforts on something productive. The anti-religion crowd needs to go back and read the constitution, and re-read, over and over again, the First Amendment. The First amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and prohibits the government from establishing a religion. It does not protect atheists from exposure to other religion. In fact any elected official, or government official, or employee, so long as they are not forcing others to believe as they do have a right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and express religious viewpoints even at government events.
At some point those whose religion is atheism, atheists, must come to an understanding that they must abide by the same rules they attempt to use to control others. Atheism is a religion. A Religion is defined as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheism like Christianity, Islam, or the belief in the Greek Gods of Old, or the Norse God Oden, has a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife. It’s not like baseball and having the righteous belief that the designated hitter is an abomination before all that is true, good, and honorable in baseball (a belief all morally righteous, intelligent, and fair thinking people share). Because atheism has a set of generally agreed upon beliefs by a number of persons concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife it must rationally be considered a religion or sect of some kind.
The right to say there is no god or supernatural has no precedence nor priority over the right to say there is only one God, or many gods. Even among elected or government employed people. Unless they force you to believe as they do, or make your belief a basis of how you are treated under the law, rules, regulations, etc. Everybody is free to express their religion, even atheists, as they see fit. It is only when religion is used to determine how a law, rule, regulation, or something the government does, is there a problem.
Our country is being torn apart and destroyed by the continuous broadening of the idea and scope of “infringement” on the rights of others. Catering to atheists is destroying the country. We need to return to the American philosophy of "live and let live." Endowing hypersensitive crybabies with the power to censor those who don’t share their religion is upsetting the equilibrium that liberty and justice for all created, and has proven to work extremely well for an long time.
The Libertarian Party of Florida is not a religion, it has no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon concerning the existence of a divine or the afterlife. The basic beliefs of the LPF are irrelevant to the existence or not of a divine being. Like all political parties the LP is an organization that exists to gain political power. The LP welcome people of any and all beliefs so long as you do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force or use of fraud to achieve social or political goals.
Now if you believe that there should be different rules, laws, regulations, or courts for people of different religions you clearly don’t share the beliefs and goals of the LP and should consider another political party. If you’re an atheist who wants to eliminate religious expression in public, eliminate evangelism, censor or silence those who don’t share your beliefs, and are willing to institute laws and use the force of government to be “free from religion” you probably shouldn’t be in the LP. You do not have a right to be free from exposure to other people’s religions. If you believe government schools should be able to censor graduation speeches so that valedictorians don’t “offend” people with their “Ode to Oden” or praise for Christ, for getting them through high school, you probably don’t belong in the LP, that is clearly the exercise of rights the government is restrained from infringing upon.
The LPF exists to gain political power in order to establish a society based on personal liberty and responsibility—a society in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives. The LPF believes the most desirable method of organizing society is the natural order that arises when the unalienable rights of individuals to life, liberty and property ownership are respected and protected. If your religion doesn’t share that belief you probably shouldn’t be in the LPF. The LPF believes that people have the right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly or fraudulently interfere with the equal rights of others. Libertarians welcome the peace, prosperity, and diversity that freedom brings.
__________________________
Oh on a side note, if you believe the DH is a good rule, you are clearly a statist pig who has disavowed even pretense of holding libertarian beliefs, hate equality under the rules, and trust in evil egalitarianism. The idea that because a pitcher is notoriously bad at hitting the ball, they deserve to be exempt from the rules other players must abide; allowing some other person to play in their place is clearly unequal treatment that offers special treatment for some players and not others. The DH is like having somebody else take the math part of your ACT, because your good in english but bad in math.The DH is almost as evil as water cooling on a Harley. The DH is an abomination to baseball, libertarianism, freedom, truth, the American Way, and all that is good and right in the world. Society tolerating the DH is the canary in the bird cage, showing we are headed to totalitarianism. Although religion should not be a litmus test against being in the LPF, maybe we should add a platform plank to disqualify all people who believe in the DH not only from the LPF but from the voter rolls as well.
Of course my opinion on baseball might be a tad extreme, even for Libertarians, but unlike politics, baseball is important.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology
By Tom Rhodes, 11/25/2013
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. They have Declared the [ open air quote ] Science is Settled[ close air quote ]. Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy.
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including AMS meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the pope; in this case crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The liberal faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs just seek a excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.
The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.
Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.
Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. They have Declared the [ open air quote ] Science is Settled[ close air quote ]. Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy.
The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including AMS meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.
Today Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the pope; in this case crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The liberal faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.
A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.
The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs just seek a excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.
To trust the IPCC you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
“Libertarian Islamist” an Oxymoron
By Tom Rhodes, 7/29/2013
The foundational principles of libertarian philosophy include the Non Aggression Principle, Equality under the law, and the Rule of Law. You cannot honestly say you’re a Libertarian if you don’t believe that all laws should apply to everybody equally, and that no individual or group is above the law. Believing that any individual or group should have different laws or be treated differently under the law is the path to tyranny and not compatible with libertarianism.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) arguably the image and positions of Islamists in America. The official position they have taken, as Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a rally is that Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.
There is currently a push by some “libertarian” Islamists, to gain acceptance of Islamists in the LP. The general goal is to label and smear those doesn’t say that Islamism is libertarian and embrace Islamists in the LP is bigots. While ignoring debate about principles.
If the LP is the party of principle, it cannot and must not accept people who proclaim that belonging to any group puts them above the law of the land. Not only does this concept violate the Rule of Law, it violates the NAP, it proposes to use the force of government to silence opinions and ideas they don't like and to grant them special privileges over others.
The concept our government was created is that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a good Muslim you must reject this notion. Islamists belief system and holy writ claim that those who don’t believe as they believe are sub-human, and must pay for the privilege of not being Muslim, or become enslaved, or be put to death. Until that basic premise is rejected by Islam, it is not compatible with modern western civilization, much less libertarian principles or the LP.
As long as Islamists reject the rule of law, and want different rules for some people than others, and promote group ideology over individual rights they are not compatible with libertarian philosophy, nor are they compatible with the LP. This isn’t to say if you’re a Muslim you can’t be a member of the LP or can’t be libertarian, but it is to say if you reject the Rule of Law and want different laws or courts for Muslims than the rest of America, you have rejected the LP and its principles. If you don’t openly and publicly reject the idea that “practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” you don’t have a place in the LP.
The foundational principles of libertarian philosophy include the Non Aggression Principle, Equality under the law, and the Rule of Law. You cannot honestly say you’re a Libertarian if you don’t believe that all laws should apply to everybody equally, and that no individual or group is above the law. Believing that any individual or group should have different laws or be treated differently under the law is the path to tyranny and not compatible with libertarianism.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) arguably the image and positions of Islamists in America. The official position they have taken, as Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a rally is that Islam that members of the faith should not be bound by American law.
“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land” ~ Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branchAt least he is open and honest about the Islamic Principles. They do not believe in the Rule of Law. The rally was held in Austin as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.
There is currently a push by some “libertarian” Islamists, to gain acceptance of Islamists in the LP. The general goal is to label and smear those doesn’t say that Islamism is libertarian and embrace Islamists in the LP is bigots. While ignoring debate about principles.
If the LP is the party of principle, it cannot and must not accept people who proclaim that belonging to any group puts them above the law of the land. Not only does this concept violate the Rule of Law, it violates the NAP, it proposes to use the force of government to silence opinions and ideas they don't like and to grant them special privileges over others.
The concept our government was created is that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” To be a good Muslim you must reject this notion. Islamists belief system and holy writ claim that those who don’t believe as they believe are sub-human, and must pay for the privilege of not being Muslim, or become enslaved, or be put to death. Until that basic premise is rejected by Islam, it is not compatible with modern western civilization, much less libertarian principles or the LP.
As long as Islamists reject the rule of law, and want different rules for some people than others, and promote group ideology over individual rights they are not compatible with libertarian philosophy, nor are they compatible with the LP. This isn’t to say if you’re a Muslim you can’t be a member of the LP or can’t be libertarian, but it is to say if you reject the Rule of Law and want different laws or courts for Muslims than the rest of America, you have rejected the LP and its principles. If you don’t openly and publicly reject the idea that “practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” you don’t have a place in the LP.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Marriage - My Changed Position
By Tom Rhodes, 3/6/2013
I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.
As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."
Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.
The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.
Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?
The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.
In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.
I am a self proclaimed Christian Libertarian, and have defended the traditional definition of marriage and been against so called Gay-Marriage. My position has been that government shouldn't be in the marriage business, Period! Now I renounce my position and now support broader definitions of marriage. Not because I've changed my views or beliefs, but pragmatically it would be a wonderful method to hamstring government a little. The basis of legal homogamy is that if two people "love" each other they should be able to have long term committed relationship and legal rights as if they were "one" regardless of sex.
As the discussion in the Supreme Court has indicated, once homogamy is legal, the rationale for limiting polygamy will be non-existent. In fact a wide variety of "marriage" types would be viable. Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an in depth discussion on various types of marriages including two men and one women called a "troika," as well as "polyandries, clans, groups, lines, and less common patterns considered vulgar by conservative people."
Here is why I now support legal homogamy: It will save the family farm. Every year family farms are broken up and sold (usually to big conglomerates) because of the death of the farmer, the inheritance taxes are so great to pay them the farm must be sold. Once marriage has been redefined to be a joining of people who love each other not just a man and one or more women, the family farm will be saved. Legal homogamy will lead to the end of all inheritance taxes. As Jeremy Irons correctly identified, a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes.
The homosexual mantra is that if two individuals love each other they should be able to marry each other and receive the legal benefits of marriage. This will be a boon to partnerships of all kinds, two, or even three, four, or a dozen, who are partners in a business and want to avoid taxes and other legal intrusion of the government in their business could just get married. This would pretty much end any type of inheritance tax and insure the orderly transition of property from generation to generation without it being gobbled up by the government.
Like virtually all government regulation, there are unintended consequences. If we accept the idea that homosexuality is no longer immoral, what grounds do we have for not similarly declaring incest, polygamy, or any type of "love" to be morally acceptable as well? The homosexual lobby has not offered logical reasoning to this question. If traditional marriage, accepted by virtually all societies for thousands of years is no longer valid, why can't any variation of marriage be valid?
The objective truth is that two men or two women cannot ever marry because marriage is a particular relationship between a man and one or more women. Marriage and its definition predate every government on earth. Government didn't create marriage so should define it either. What is clear is that if the government doesn't get out of the marriage business, marriage will be meaningless and just another means of avoiding government taxes, and not a foundational institute of society.
In as much as the government generally perverts and corrupts most things it touches, marriage is no exception. Let's go ahead and allow any type of "marriage" to be legal, it will be the best method to insure pass down our property to our progeny and other loved ones. Widow or Widower near death yourself, don't want all your property to get gobbled up in taxes the solution is easy, marry your grandkid, that way when you die all your wealth is passed down without the government getting its greedy paws on it. Legalizing homogamy makes "marriage" meaningless, as long as we are going to do that, let's take advantage of it and screw the government out of inheritance taxes all together.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Even Atheist Promotes the Bible.
By Tom Rhodes, 5/25/2012
In a Guardian article where he promoted the idea that the King James Bible should be part of every British students education, author and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, said, "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian." His motives were not to promote Christianity. Recognizing that many of the bloody events and wars in European history were the result of religious clashes, Dawkins argues that if people know what was in the Bible they would better be able to reject it.
"Whatever else the Bible might be - and it really is a great work of literature..." ~ Richard Dawkins
For once I agree with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins. Regardless of Dawkins motives, he is promoting exposing more young impressionable minds to God's Word. It's ironic and possibly prophetic how God uses even His enemies to proclaim His Word.
In a Guardian article where he promoted the idea that the King James Bible should be part of every British students education, author and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, said, "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian." His motives were not to promote Christianity. Recognizing that many of the bloody events and wars in European history were the result of religious clashes, Dawkins argues that if people know what was in the Bible they would better be able to reject it.
"Whatever else the Bible might be - and it really is a great work of literature..." ~ Richard Dawkins
For once I agree with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins. Regardless of Dawkins motives, he is promoting exposing more young impressionable minds to God's Word. It's ironic and possibly prophetic how God uses even His enemies to proclaim His Word.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Socialism is the embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins
by Tom Rhodes, 5/19/2012
In the name of “fairness” socialists like Spread-the-Wealth-Obama, famous for such statements as “At some point you’ve made enough money,” have taken the Seven Deadly Sins and attempt to make them morally acceptable.
The Seven Deadly Sins: Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony, make up the basis for socialism and statist actions.
Wrath: Obama told Charlie Gibson in an interview that although raising the taxes on the rich would decrease not increase government revenue, it had to be done to make things “fair”. Wrath, or revenge, upon those people who are more successful than most is the rationale, not fairness. In Obama's world it is only "fair" if the rich are punished for being successful.
Greed: Statists greedily want control and power even more than money. They hate individual liberty and freedom. Protecting individual liberty removes power from them. Look at the fight against changing our tax code which gives them the control and power to reward and punish using the tax code. Legally GE can get away with paying no taxes, while doctors and other small businessmen are crippled using the same laws. Tarp, the Stimulus, etc. are all socialist policies to reward those in power. Too Big to Fail is the excuse used to justify greed.
Sloth: Socialism, and current statists use “entitlements” to reward those who don’t work by “spreading the wealth.” From paying farmers not to plant certain crops or not to plant crops at all, to making it possible for generations to live on the dole, our entitlement programs have morphed from good programs taking care of the needy, to dependency programs rewarding those who can but won’t work.
Pride: Despite the historic failure of socialism wherever implemented, socialists continue to make claims to its moral superiority to free markets and liberty. From the first British colony to the USA to the 20th century Communist collapses, socialism has always resulted in poverty, starvation, and privation for the masses with luxury for the ruling elite. The claim that capitalism, not socialism, is the cause of poverty is an example of extremely prideful hubris.
Lust: This is one of the primary tools of socialists, from Marx to Hitler to Obama. All have shown that they use and embrace lust in the masses to destroy the social foundations of free and moral societies. The destruction of the traditional family has been espoused and is the method they are and have used to further enable power in the state and not with the people. Although no longer open about destroying the family, they now use “tolerance” to force normalization of lust on society. Obama's approval and call for same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage is a primary example of normalizing lust.
Envy: Socialists are simply envious of those who individually make life better for themselves. They support wealth redistribution, because they envy those who are successful. J. K. Rowling is obscenely rich, made so by hundreds of millions of people poorer than she freely trading some of their wealth for her stories. Socialists envy J.K. Rowling and her wealth saying that the hundreds of millions of people who’ve purchased Harry Potter and made J.K. Rowling wealthy were abused. The entire occupy movement is based on class envy and embraces envy as morally righteous.
Gluttony: Look at the ruling elite who espouse socialistic statism. The prime example is Al Gore who tells us all to live without internal combustion engines and use less power while personally and consistantly using more energy than a small town. Gluttony is the rule not the exception to the ruling elite, especially the socialist ruling elite who can never have enough power.
Thinking like socialistic statists the seven deadly sins are virtues, and are openly used to espouse both socialism and statism.
In the name of “fairness” socialists like Spread-the-Wealth-Obama, famous for such statements as “At some point you’ve made enough money,” have taken the Seven Deadly Sins and attempt to make them morally acceptable.
The Seven Deadly Sins: Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony, make up the basis for socialism and statist actions.
Wrath: Obama told Charlie Gibson in an interview that although raising the taxes on the rich would decrease not increase government revenue, it had to be done to make things “fair”. Wrath, or revenge, upon those people who are more successful than most is the rationale, not fairness. In Obama's world it is only "fair" if the rich are punished for being successful.
Greed: Statists greedily want control and power even more than money. They hate individual liberty and freedom. Protecting individual liberty removes power from them. Look at the fight against changing our tax code which gives them the control and power to reward and punish using the tax code. Legally GE can get away with paying no taxes, while doctors and other small businessmen are crippled using the same laws. Tarp, the Stimulus, etc. are all socialist policies to reward those in power. Too Big to Fail is the excuse used to justify greed.
Sloth: Socialism, and current statists use “entitlements” to reward those who don’t work by “spreading the wealth.” From paying farmers not to plant certain crops or not to plant crops at all, to making it possible for generations to live on the dole, our entitlement programs have morphed from good programs taking care of the needy, to dependency programs rewarding those who can but won’t work.
Pride: Despite the historic failure of socialism wherever implemented, socialists continue to make claims to its moral superiority to free markets and liberty. From the first British colony to the USA to the 20th century Communist collapses, socialism has always resulted in poverty, starvation, and privation for the masses with luxury for the ruling elite. The claim that capitalism, not socialism, is the cause of poverty is an example of extremely prideful hubris.
Lust: This is one of the primary tools of socialists, from Marx to Hitler to Obama. All have shown that they use and embrace lust in the masses to destroy the social foundations of free and moral societies. The destruction of the traditional family has been espoused and is the method they are and have used to further enable power in the state and not with the people. Although no longer open about destroying the family, they now use “tolerance” to force normalization of lust on society. Obama's approval and call for same sex marriage as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage is a primary example of normalizing lust.
Envy: Socialists are simply envious of those who individually make life better for themselves. They support wealth redistribution, because they envy those who are successful. J. K. Rowling is obscenely rich, made so by hundreds of millions of people poorer than she freely trading some of their wealth for her stories. Socialists envy J.K. Rowling and her wealth saying that the hundreds of millions of people who’ve purchased Harry Potter and made J.K. Rowling wealthy were abused. The entire occupy movement is based on class envy and embraces envy as morally righteous.
Gluttony: Look at the ruling elite who espouse socialistic statism. The prime example is Al Gore who tells us all to live without internal combustion engines and use less power while personally and consistantly using more energy than a small town. Gluttony is the rule not the exception to the ruling elite, especially the socialist ruling elite who can never have enough power.
Thinking like socialistic statists the seven deadly sins are virtues, and are openly used to espouse both socialism and statism.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Day of Silence
By Tom Rhodes, 4/19/12
The Day of Silence (DOS), is an attack on free speech and yet another reason why the government should get out of the public school business. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sponsors Friday's "Day of Silence". Their goal is to have thousands of public high school and even middle school students to be silent for an entire day. The protest is to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals. The goal is simple and strait forward, destroy traditional values through the suppression of freedom of speech and religion. The purpose is clear and is not to promote tolerance, but is to undermine traditional beliefs including the eons old belief that homosexuality is immoral.
GLSEN is not proposing disrupting school instruction time, saying that Students do not have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. This position by GLSEN is the only acceptable position they have. The libertarian position is the toleration of their other positions, not a call for them to be silenced.
Schools which assert that DOS merely promotes acceptance, never define what the students are accepting. If it is to accept diverse opinions and beliefs then time should be given to those who opinions and beliefs are more traditional. The actions of schools who permit instructional time to be interrupted and degraded by the DOS, are saying that the opinion that homosexuality is moral is more valuable and deserves promotion even if it interupts instructional time than the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. It is a clear moral teaching by the school system. It is clearly appropriate to teach acceptance, if that means teaching that we should treat all people equally and with civility. But is it totally inappropriate to even suggest that students should or must accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral - Legal yes - Moral Not! It is also totally inappropriate to even suggest that students cannot nor should not express strong moral opinions.
Most Americans take the libertarian stance that people are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The vast majority of Americans tolerates and in fact is non-judgmental of homosexuality. Like sleeping around with lots of people, smoking dope, or hanging around with lawyers and bankers, most Americans think it is immoral but tolerate and such behavior and are not judgmental about it; Americans clearly don't want laws making such actions illegal. This is the rub, GLSEN and the LGBT community, don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everybody who chooses to engage in homosexual acts to not just be tolerated but not even feel "uncomfortable" about their choice. They want to silence all those who would make statements which morally condemn the practice and make them feel "uncomfortable". They are trying to redefine comfort as safety. Saying that when students make moral statements about homosexuality is the equivalent of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that those statements of moral conviction should not be allowed for reasons of "safety." GLSEN says the goal is to foster "respect difference within the school community and society as a whole." The truth is that they do not want any respect or tolerance of differences if those differences reflect a moral conviction they don't approve. The promotion and support of the DOS is an example of how GLSEN is actively working at silencing differences they don't approve.
If school administrations consistently applied the logic and reasoning of GLSEN, then every single statement that disapproved of anybody's activities would be prohibited. There is a clear double standard on freedom of speech. While I and all Libertarians, support the right of GLSEN to promote the DOS and would do nothing to try and make the DOS illegal, this is not acceptance of their position. I strongly disagree with the goals of GLSEN, but I will defend to the death their right to have them, promote them, and say them. The difference is that GLSEN and a large part of the LBGT community don't share the American belief in Freedom of Speech. Not only will they not defend the rights of people to publicly make moral statements they don't approve, they try to suppress speech they don't approve.
Pro-gay statements and open acts of homosexual affection, makes many people with traditional values feel uncomfortable and bullied to remain silent. GLSEN and other groups like them are bullying those who don't agree with them. Although GLSEN has the right to free speech, anybody in America who values that right should not only not support them but should actively work at counter protesting the DOS; making it clear that silencing ideas you don't agree with is not tolerance; silencing ideas you don't like is un-American; silencing ideas you don't like will is not an acceptable solution.
The issue here isn't gay rights, nobody is campaigning or calling to make activities between consenting adults illegal. That is not the same as condoning such activities or accepting them as moral and proper. Regardless of how you "feel" about prostitution, it like homosexual activities is an action between consenting adults, which is legal in much of the world including parts of the USA. That doesn't make prostitution a morally or socially acceptable activity. The legal activities of our Secret Service in Columbia should be condemned on moral and social grounds, and those agents should be held accountable to their employer if they in fact broke contractual rules of their employment or contractual obligations to another, like their spouse. If they in fact broke no laws or contracts, then there should be no legal consequences to their actions. They should however be publicly condemned as immoral, unthinking rubes and socially ostracized. Condemnation of immoral activity without legal consequences should be the appropriate response to immoral but legal acts.
How do you think it makes an alcoholic feel if he hears somebody condemning drunkards? How do you think it makes a adulterer feel when they are exposed on "Cheaters"? How do you think an metabolically challenged person feels when they see pictures of similar people showing rolls of fat at the "People of Wal-Mart" website? Do you think that it makes them feel "uncomfortable"? Do the way drunks, cheaters, and gluttons feel about having their sins exposed either directly or indirectly justifies silencing the speech of others to talk about those sins? If it does then, every environmentalist who denounces owners of BIG SUV's should be silenced because it may make SUV owners feel uncomfortable. Every PETA member should have their speech curtailed because their intolerance for meat-eaters makes meat eaters feel oppressed, harassed, and bullied. Those are absurd examples, but that is exactly what gay rights activists support; suppression of freedom of speech. To sum it up. if I cannot say things that make you feel uncomfortable about your life choices, then you can't say things that make me feel uncomfortable about my life choices.
Libertarians believe that prostitution, like homosexuality should be legal, that position does not even infer that they are morally or socially acceptable. We believe that freedom and liberty should be protected, even the freedom of speech of those we disagree. The same cannot be said for statists, and especially for a huge part of the LBGT community as represented by GLSEN, who believe that speech they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable", should be suppressed. Freedom of belief, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are the issue. Those who would suppress the speech of others and label mere speech as harassment or discrimination and attempt to outlaw such speech with significant consequences, just because they don't like that speech are the people we should denounce.
The solution to GLSEN's campaign to suppress speech they don't like, isn't suppressing GLSEN, but more speech. Make no doubt about it, the DOS is not about protecting gay rights it is about suppressing the free speech rights of those who don't conform to the LBGT agenda. Homosexuality is a sin, just like prostitution, being a drunkard, cursing, gluttony, etc. Because none of these activities involve force of fraud against another or infringe upon another's rights they should be and are generally legal (prostitution is legal so long as you trade dinner, a show, drinks and maybe a nice pair of ear-rings for sex instead of cash). It doesn't mean that people who engage in legal but immoral behavior have the right to suppress the condemnation by others. Just because an action is legal doesn't grant those who engage in that action the right to silence criticism by those who don't.
Our government run schools should neither support nor suppress the DOS, and should be neutral on student's opinions of legal actions including homosexuality. Supporting either a pro or anti position on homosexual activity, is in fact establishing a religion. Government schools supporting homosexuality and its moral acceptance while suppressing the speech of those who believe that it is a abominable sin and should be condemned, is in effect establishing a religion and is the suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. Forcing texts and curriculum to support homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality is clearly forcing the suppression of religious beliefs and opinions. This is just another example of government schools, and the government in general wanting control over the people, even as to what they think and what ideas they are allowed to express.
Support of the DOS is supporting suppression of free speech. In protest to this, I urge every parent to encourage their high school student to verbally make as many moral condemnations of the abominable social behavior of homosexuality, during the DOS, even if you just don't care about homosexuality, do it to fight suppression of free speech. Such statements as "Homosexuality is a Sin" are not discriminatory, not harassment, not illegal, and not even uncivil. Such statements are constitutionally protected. To promote free speech have your kid, wear an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo, wear a T-shirt with pictures of armed soldiers carrying big guns at memorial Day, wear a PETA shirt (People Eating Tasty Animals) on World Vegan Day, November 1st, wear a black arm band to protest the wars, wear T-shirts with controversial bible verses any day they can, or even wear T-Shirts with controversial Islamic verses, etc. etc. etc. Freedom of speech is worth defending, say something, wear something, express something somehow that will stir up statists who want their speech heard but not those they oppose, but don't do nothing.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmond Burke
The Day of Silence (DOS), is an attack on free speech and yet another reason why the government should get out of the public school business. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), sponsors Friday's "Day of Silence". Their goal is to have thousands of public high school and even middle school students to be silent for an entire day. The protest is to promote GLSEN's socio-political goals. The goal is simple and strait forward, destroy traditional values through the suppression of freedom of speech and religion. The purpose is clear and is not to promote tolerance, but is to undermine traditional beliefs including the eons old belief that homosexuality is immoral.
GLSEN is not proposing disrupting school instruction time, saying that Students do not have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. This position by GLSEN is the only acceptable position they have. The libertarian position is the toleration of their other positions, not a call for them to be silenced.
Schools which assert that DOS merely promotes acceptance, never define what the students are accepting. If it is to accept diverse opinions and beliefs then time should be given to those who opinions and beliefs are more traditional. The actions of schools who permit instructional time to be interrupted and degraded by the DOS, are saying that the opinion that homosexuality is moral is more valuable and deserves promotion even if it interupts instructional time than the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. It is a clear moral teaching by the school system. It is clearly appropriate to teach acceptance, if that means teaching that we should treat all people equally and with civility. But is it totally inappropriate to even suggest that students should or must accept the view that homosexual conduct is moral - Legal yes - Moral Not! It is also totally inappropriate to even suggest that students cannot nor should not express strong moral opinions.
Most Americans take the libertarian stance that people are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. The vast majority of Americans tolerates and in fact is non-judgmental of homosexuality. Like sleeping around with lots of people, smoking dope, or hanging around with lawyers and bankers, most Americans think it is immoral but tolerate and such behavior and are not judgmental about it; Americans clearly don't want laws making such actions illegal. This is the rub, GLSEN and the LGBT community, don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They want everybody who chooses to engage in homosexual acts to not just be tolerated but not even feel "uncomfortable" about their choice. They want to silence all those who would make statements which morally condemn the practice and make them feel "uncomfortable". They are trying to redefine comfort as safety. Saying that when students make moral statements about homosexuality is the equivalent of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that those statements of moral conviction should not be allowed for reasons of "safety." GLSEN says the goal is to foster "respect difference within the school community and society as a whole." The truth is that they do not want any respect or tolerance of differences if those differences reflect a moral conviction they don't approve. The promotion and support of the DOS is an example of how GLSEN is actively working at silencing differences they don't approve.
If school administrations consistently applied the logic and reasoning of GLSEN, then every single statement that disapproved of anybody's activities would be prohibited. There is a clear double standard on freedom of speech. While I and all Libertarians, support the right of GLSEN to promote the DOS and would do nothing to try and make the DOS illegal, this is not acceptance of their position. I strongly disagree with the goals of GLSEN, but I will defend to the death their right to have them, promote them, and say them. The difference is that GLSEN and a large part of the LBGT community don't share the American belief in Freedom of Speech. Not only will they not defend the rights of people to publicly make moral statements they don't approve, they try to suppress speech they don't approve.
Pro-gay statements and open acts of homosexual affection, makes many people with traditional values feel uncomfortable and bullied to remain silent. GLSEN and other groups like them are bullying those who don't agree with them. Although GLSEN has the right to free speech, anybody in America who values that right should not only not support them but should actively work at counter protesting the DOS; making it clear that silencing ideas you don't agree with is not tolerance; silencing ideas you don't like is un-American; silencing ideas you don't like will is not an acceptable solution.
The issue here isn't gay rights, nobody is campaigning or calling to make activities between consenting adults illegal. That is not the same as condoning such activities or accepting them as moral and proper. Regardless of how you "feel" about prostitution, it like homosexual activities is an action between consenting adults, which is legal in much of the world including parts of the USA. That doesn't make prostitution a morally or socially acceptable activity. The legal activities of our Secret Service in Columbia should be condemned on moral and social grounds, and those agents should be held accountable to their employer if they in fact broke contractual rules of their employment or contractual obligations to another, like their spouse. If they in fact broke no laws or contracts, then there should be no legal consequences to their actions. They should however be publicly condemned as immoral, unthinking rubes and socially ostracized. Condemnation of immoral activity without legal consequences should be the appropriate response to immoral but legal acts.
How do you think it makes an alcoholic feel if he hears somebody condemning drunkards? How do you think it makes a adulterer feel when they are exposed on "Cheaters"? How do you think an metabolically challenged person feels when they see pictures of similar people showing rolls of fat at the "People of Wal-Mart" website? Do you think that it makes them feel "uncomfortable"? Do the way drunks, cheaters, and gluttons feel about having their sins exposed either directly or indirectly justifies silencing the speech of others to talk about those sins? If it does then, every environmentalist who denounces owners of BIG SUV's should be silenced because it may make SUV owners feel uncomfortable. Every PETA member should have their speech curtailed because their intolerance for meat-eaters makes meat eaters feel oppressed, harassed, and bullied. Those are absurd examples, but that is exactly what gay rights activists support; suppression of freedom of speech. To sum it up. if I cannot say things that make you feel uncomfortable about your life choices, then you can't say things that make me feel uncomfortable about my life choices.
Libertarians believe that prostitution, like homosexuality should be legal, that position does not even infer that they are morally or socially acceptable. We believe that freedom and liberty should be protected, even the freedom of speech of those we disagree. The same cannot be said for statists, and especially for a huge part of the LBGT community as represented by GLSEN, who believe that speech they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable", should be suppressed. Freedom of belief, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are the issue. Those who would suppress the speech of others and label mere speech as harassment or discrimination and attempt to outlaw such speech with significant consequences, just because they don't like that speech are the people we should denounce.
The solution to GLSEN's campaign to suppress speech they don't like, isn't suppressing GLSEN, but more speech. Make no doubt about it, the DOS is not about protecting gay rights it is about suppressing the free speech rights of those who don't conform to the LBGT agenda. Homosexuality is a sin, just like prostitution, being a drunkard, cursing, gluttony, etc. Because none of these activities involve force of fraud against another or infringe upon another's rights they should be and are generally legal (prostitution is legal so long as you trade dinner, a show, drinks and maybe a nice pair of ear-rings for sex instead of cash). It doesn't mean that people who engage in legal but immoral behavior have the right to suppress the condemnation by others. Just because an action is legal doesn't grant those who engage in that action the right to silence criticism by those who don't.
Our government run schools should neither support nor suppress the DOS, and should be neutral on student's opinions of legal actions including homosexuality. Supporting either a pro or anti position on homosexual activity, is in fact establishing a religion. Government schools supporting homosexuality and its moral acceptance while suppressing the speech of those who believe that it is a abominable sin and should be condemned, is in effect establishing a religion and is the suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion of others. Forcing texts and curriculum to support homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality is clearly forcing the suppression of religious beliefs and opinions. This is just another example of government schools, and the government in general wanting control over the people, even as to what they think and what ideas they are allowed to express.
Support of the DOS is supporting suppression of free speech. In protest to this, I urge every parent to encourage their high school student to verbally make as many moral condemnations of the abominable social behavior of homosexuality, during the DOS, even if you just don't care about homosexuality, do it to fight suppression of free speech. Such statements as "Homosexuality is a Sin" are not discriminatory, not harassment, not illegal, and not even uncivil. Such statements are constitutionally protected. To promote free speech have your kid, wear an American Flag on Cinco de Mayo, wear a T-shirt with pictures of armed soldiers carrying big guns at memorial Day, wear a PETA shirt (People Eating Tasty Animals) on World Vegan Day, November 1st, wear a black arm band to protest the wars, wear T-shirts with controversial bible verses any day they can, or even wear T-Shirts with controversial Islamic verses, etc. etc. etc. Freedom of speech is worth defending, say something, wear something, express something somehow that will stir up statists who want their speech heard but not those they oppose, but don't do nothing.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmond Burke
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Scientific Skepticism, A Religious Experience
By Tom Rhodes 4/5/2012
Last week a study in the American Sociological Review by Gordon Gauchat claims there has been, in the past four decades, a dramatic decline in churchgoers’ faith in science since around 1970. Sociology as a science is notoriously soft, lacking in rigor, and has produced such failed ideas as eugenics. Be that as it may it does offer insight.
The modern scientific method was fundamentally codified by religious men (mostly Christians) in order to better understand God’s creation. Ever hear of the phrase “doubting Thomas?” It was coined because of nature of the disciple Thomas. Skepticism is definitely a Christian trait.
Consider Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), now renamed Climate Change. Over the past four decades, scientists have told us to prepare for an upcoming ice age and warned of catastrophic global warming. Many scientists and government types trying to use scares of dramatic climate change as a means to institute tyrannical government controls on the everyday lives of the average person. At the same time scientists like Professor Richard Linden of MIT, and thousands of others clearly say that there is no scientific evidence of man causing harmful climate change.
Mike Hulme is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia who has done substantial work and is influential with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is of course the same University of East Anglia which is infamous for the Climate-gate emails, where “scientists” were exposed hiding and suppressing data, and colluding against any whose research didn’t support the pre-conceived conclusions that AGW is valid. These emails noted that it was more important to protect the message of AGW than expose the truth revealed by the science.
Professors Hulme explains from the concluding chapter his book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
People looking for honesty and abject truth are now skeptical of the “science” presented by proponents of Global Warming theory. Being caught in lies, and watching complete double standards as to who should and shouldn’t follow new draconian environmental laws have left many skeptical. This is a more common trait in people of faith in America. How dare people of faith, who believe that there is actual truth, be skeptical of scientists who openly claim that the idea of Climate Change being used as a method to achieve political, social, economic, and personal projects is more important than the science and problems to be solved.
This new attitude by scientists like Hulme of demanding the trust of the people without evidence, in the face of them hiding evidence, and in their own words saying the evidence, facts, and science isn’t as important as the political and social goals is a good reason that the religious are skeptic. Any good scientist should be a Doubting Thomas, why is that skepticism from outside the “scientific” community now seen as irrational.
Doubting Thomas is someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; in other words, a skeptic. This phrase is coined based on based on the Biblical story of Christ’s Apostle, Thomas. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, doubted Jesus' resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). Skepticism has a long tradition in Christianity, more importantly, scientific skepticism is rooted in a methodology for looking at what God crated, a methodology developed by great religious men of the past: The Scientific Method.
Roger Bacon (1214–1294), is credited with first documenting the scientific method, based on the writings of Muslim scientists, he described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. But it is Galileo (1564–1642) who is considered the father of the Scientific Method in modern culture. According to an old 1970 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.”
Scientists are now asking for unqualified faith in their findings and recommendations, not skepticism facts, and truth. That sounds more like religion than science. Gauchat’s work seems to fly in the face of famous sociologist Robert K. Merton who wrote, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
Last week a study in the American Sociological Review by Gordon Gauchat claims there has been, in the past four decades, a dramatic decline in churchgoers’ faith in science since around 1970. Sociology as a science is notoriously soft, lacking in rigor, and has produced such failed ideas as eugenics. Be that as it may it does offer insight.
The modern scientific method was fundamentally codified by religious men (mostly Christians) in order to better understand God’s creation. Ever hear of the phrase “doubting Thomas?” It was coined because of nature of the disciple Thomas. Skepticism is definitely a Christian trait.
Consider Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), now renamed Climate Change. Over the past four decades, scientists have told us to prepare for an upcoming ice age and warned of catastrophic global warming. Many scientists and government types trying to use scares of dramatic climate change as a means to institute tyrannical government controls on the everyday lives of the average person. At the same time scientists like Professor Richard Linden of MIT, and thousands of others clearly say that there is no scientific evidence of man causing harmful climate change.
Mike Hulme is a high-ranking professor at the University of East Anglia who has done substantial work and is influential with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is of course the same University of East Anglia which is infamous for the Climate-gate emails, where “scientists” were exposed hiding and suppressing data, and colluding against any whose research didn’t support the pre-conceived conclusions that AGW is valid. These emails noted that it was more important to protect the message of AGW than expose the truth revealed by the science.
Professors Hulme explains from the concluding chapter his book, Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
People looking for honesty and abject truth are now skeptical of the “science” presented by proponents of Global Warming theory. Being caught in lies, and watching complete double standards as to who should and shouldn’t follow new draconian environmental laws have left many skeptical. This is a more common trait in people of faith in America. How dare people of faith, who believe that there is actual truth, be skeptical of scientists who openly claim that the idea of Climate Change being used as a method to achieve political, social, economic, and personal projects is more important than the science and problems to be solved.
This new attitude by scientists like Hulme of demanding the trust of the people without evidence, in the face of them hiding evidence, and in their own words saying the evidence, facts, and science isn’t as important as the political and social goals is a good reason that the religious are skeptic. Any good scientist should be a Doubting Thomas, why is that skepticism from outside the “scientific” community now seen as irrational.
Doubting Thomas is someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; in other words, a skeptic. This phrase is coined based on based on the Biblical story of Christ’s Apostle, Thomas. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, doubted Jesus' resurrection and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). Skepticism has a long tradition in Christianity, more importantly, scientific skepticism is rooted in a methodology for looking at what God crated, a methodology developed by great religious men of the past: The Scientific Method.
Roger Bacon (1214–1294), is credited with first documenting the scientific method, based on the writings of Muslim scientists, he described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. But it is Galileo (1564–1642) who is considered the father of the Scientific Method in modern culture. According to an old 1970 edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica, “Even while Bacon was philosophizing, the true method was being practiced by Galileo, who, with a combination of observation, hypothesis, mathematical deduction and confirmatory experiment founded the science of dynamics.”
Scientists are now asking for unqualified faith in their findings and recommendations, not skepticism facts, and truth. That sounds more like religion than science. Gauchat’s work seems to fly in the face of famous sociologist Robert K. Merton who wrote, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
