Wolverton, Cagle Cartoons
Reprinted with full permission by Cagle Cartoons
Palin’s Religious Baggage
- Post author:Erich Vieth
- Post published:September 15, 2008
- Post category:Cartoons
- Post comments:40 Comments
Erich Vieth
Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.
Why should the idea of creationism not be taught. What do the liberals have to loose? Oh yeah, the fact that evolution is just a theory!!! Where is the open-mindedness, tolerance???
everyone should be against "sex ed" that promotes immorality and misleads people saying that condoms will protect from STD's. I have noticed that they have changed the slogan from safe sex to safer sex. Why? Because sex outside of marriage is not safe at all, it leads to pain and suffering!
Call it like it is, it is not anti-choice it is anti-death. Pro-life or pro-death. Murder is wrong, and by the way who gives the unborn babies a choice mister pro-choice?
You want to talk about intolerant? Homosexuals become the most intolerant people in the world if you do not agree with their point of view. They want to suppress your opinion if you do not agree with them. What kind of tolerance is that?
The list could go on and on. You are proving intolerance with your post my friend!
Erik: I say we should teach creationism, but teach it as part of religion class, not as if it were science. As far as your "theory" accusation, you need to go to your library and read a good book on evolution. It might take a few hours and you'll have to focus on the task and exercise some critical thought. You'll need to show me that you understand what Darwin taught before I will be able to continue this discussion on evolution any further.
Are you suggesting that sex-ed teaches promiscuity? Some promiscuity is built into humans (evidenced by our sexual dimorphism and by widespread human behavior, including the serial polygamy of numerous prominent Republicans such as McCain)–you might not like it, but it's a widely proven fact. Would you rather have lots of accidental pregnancies? That's the only alternative to effective birth control. I'm all for abstinence as one component of sex-ed (but not the entire program), so don't go jumping to conclusions.
We'll just have the agree to disagree on abortion. Just because it's human and alive (yes, I believe that a fetus is a human life) doesn't mean that it is yet a baby. As I've made clear many times, in my opinion, late term pregnancies are babies entitled to full legal protection as people who are born. In short, I support Roe v Wade.
In my opinion, gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and someday, we will look back on the conservative venom toward gays as one of the great embarrassments of American history.
I see Sarah Palin's world-view as riddled with intolerance and hypocrisy. I see her rejection of science as reprehensible and inhumane for dozens of reasons, including her refusal to allow stem cell research that could help millions of people with crippling disease.
Finally, it is insanity to elect a person as vice-president when she believes that the end of the world is imminent and she is part of a movement that glorifies widespread warfare in the Middle-East as the fulfillment of a prophecy.
Erik,
Three exclamation points (!!!) and three questions marks (???) suggests to me that you really don't want answers, you've already made up your mind.
But: teach creationism. It is not science. It would be a good thing to have a section of science education devoted to how to understand and demonmstrate B.S. But to do that, we would have to actually teach the scientific method, which with the exception of a few high end schools, we don't do.
Sex education: I'll never understand opposition to this. You wouldn't let someone drive a car who hasn't learned how to use it, would you? We expect people who wish to operate machinery to learn how first, right? So why would you deny kids an education in how their own bodies work? You have it exactly backwards (as usual for this kind attitude)—the promiscuity exists first, the barn door always gets closed afterward. When I was a kid I remember listening to a couple of older (70s, 80s) farmers joke about sex—"The first baby can come at any time, all the rest take 9 months." Doesn't sound to me like much has changed.
But comprehensive sex education has been demonstrated to work, provided you don't B.S. the kids.
Intolerance from people who are discriminated against is a normal human reaction. You have to look past that at the issues and make a judgment about what is right or wrong.
What you're saying is that by revealing all these problems, we've done more harm than good. You wish to shut the door and put them all back in the dark where they used to be, when things were somehow "better"?
My friend, the worst intolerance is willful blindness.
Erich
I received a secular education and was brainwashed by evolution until I learned the truth (from God’s Word and from basic science). I am educated so you do not have to speak to me like I am uneducated. I understand Darwin’s Origin of Species. The term evolution is quite broad, if defined as change over time then yes, there is micro evolution. That explains variations within species (different types of dogs, etc.) but there is no proof of macro evolution (whole new species evolving from other species). The magic word with macro evolutionists is time. If you kiss a frog and it becomes a prince then the reference is a fairy tale because it happened all at once, but if you throw in billions of years and the frog become a prince then it is no longer referred to as a fairy tale, it is called “science”. What a joke!!!
You wrote “Are you suggesting that sex-ed teaches promiscuity?”
What else but immorality is promoted when you put a condom in the hands of a teenager? Answer this question for me please, if virginity is kept until marriage and fidelity is practiced in marriage, would we still suffer from STD’s (8,000 new teenagers are infected daily with an STD in the USA)? Why would anything else be promoted? The problem with sex ed is that is glorifies the use of condoms and treats virginity and abstinence as old fashioned an impossible. If you feed nonsense like that to teen of course they are going to suffer from STD’s. Be open-minded and let both sides of the argument be presented in schools. The best will win, that is abstinence and virginity. It is the safest and makes the most sense.
You admit that we are born sinners when you say that promiscuity is built into humans. It is already there so why encourage it by putting a condom in a kids hand and provoking that promiscuity that is already in him/her?
You agree that murder is wrong, correct? So if the fetus is alive then you are taking life which is murder. A person outside the womb has the right to live but a person inside the womb does not. Location does not change the situation. I have just as much right to life in one part of the country as I do in another, location does not change that right! Roe v Wade is promoting death. Please bring the “what about rape argument”. Only about 0.8% of abortions are performed as a result of rape/incest so that means that 99.2% are forced to suffer b/c of 0.8%. Rape and incest is just an excuse to promote legal murder in the USA. What kind are barbarians are we?
Would you like to know about homosexuals? I can give you a Biblical description and then show you how they play the same rule today using the same tactics causing the same negative consequences. I have been fighting this battle for a while now and I know many homosexuals, some are former because they have repented and been changed from the inside out by God. Still there are others who hate with a passion, anyone who disagrees with them. I love all people (including homosexuals) and I desire their good as God does but just like He hates sin, I also hate it (not the sinner but the sin).
Stem cell research is another façade (like rape/incest) to promote murder!!! I use the term murder because that is what it is. The liberals try to soften it up by saying “choice”. Where is the baby’s choice?
You want to talk about the Middle East? Great, I love to talk about it because God does as well. You see God has a special plan for Israel and He will carry out that plan (agree or disagree it does not matter). Every generation has hated the Hebrews and some have tried to wipe them out but God made a Covenant with them that they would never cease to exist. He will keep that Covenant. None have been able to destroy the Hebrews even though they have tried. Why is that? (the power of the Romans could not do it) The reason is, because when you fight against the Hebrews you fight a loosing battle against God. If you are on the side of the Hebrews then you will win because God will always win. You can believe it or not but history has already proven it and is proving it everyday!!!
I know the source for all of the answers. I am stating what that source says and am being criticized for it, where is the open mindedness? Or is it that you need to inform but do not need to be informed?
You cannot prove evolution (macro not micro) using the scientific theory. It take more “faith” to “believe” in evolution that it does to believe in the God of the Bible.
Comparing sex to cars and machinery is a little ignorant. The Bible explains how sex works, who it is for, who it is not for etc. That is not the point. The point is encouraging immorality among teens, and unfortunately that is what most “sex-ed” classes do. When you put a condom in a teens hand you are encouraging promiscuity. The condom does not protect your emotions and it does not protect against STD’s very well (not nearly as well as many “believe”). Teens can be and should be taught how their bodies work but there is a way to do it that is descent (common sense) but then there is another way that teaches them not only about their bodies but also challenges them to explore (immorality) with each other and themselves. I have sat through sex ed classes. I do not know where you get this idea that I am uneducated. I am very well educated (with a secular education). I know how virginity and abstinence are treated in these “sex-ed” classes. Teens are already prone to immorality so why encourage it. Condoms have been promoted for years and STD’s among teens continues to grow (among those who use condoms). 8,000 new cases among teens every day!!!
I am not asking anyone to close his/her eyes and stay in the dark. I am asking people to think for themselves. Look around you, the more we move away from God the worse things get (STD’s and AIDS are just one point of reference). With evolution you are asking people to “believe” that it just happened that way because the lack of proof is overwhelming. Look in the mirror when you make the statement about willful blindness. Bigotry against the Scriptures is common today. People are told not to even bother with the Bible because It is full of mistakes. Ask them about the mistakes and there is either a long pause or “they are in there, “trust” me. Basically the movement is to keep people away from the Bible, in other words, keep them from searching for themselves, the “just take my word for it” mentality. Who is keeping people in the dark?
Erik: I'm curious. You put yourself forth as the spokesperson for the "Christian" point of view. Yet I personally know dozens of devout Christians who find your positions to be abhorrent. What's the problem with all of those Christians who disagree with you? Are they stupid? Are they evil? Are they not really Christians?
Why don't you go visit some moderate Christian sites and work out these issues with them, then come back and report on any consensus that you might be able to reach?
You wrote “You put yourself forth as the spokesperson for the “Christian” point of view.”
Here is where you are wrong. All I do is share the message of the Word of God (it is not my own because my wisdom is useless). If so called Christians do not agree with the Word of God then their problem is not with me, their problem is with God. I would question which god they serve if they do not hold to the teachings of the God of the Bible.
I will show you what the Bible says even though you say using the Bible is a circular argument. By the way, you use the Bible to argue against the Bible but you say that if I use the Bible to argue for the Bible then my argument is circular, is there not a little hypocrisy on your part being shown?
Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished
Jesus Himself promotes the Word of God (OT)
Then He goes on to say
Matthew 7:21 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Not everyone who calls himself a “Christian” is a Christian. The question is then, what is the will of the Father? Jesus explains
Matthew 7:24 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man . . .
God’s will is that you hear His Word and build your life upon It. Those who reject the Word of God have rejected God and He rejects them.
So you do not want my opinion on your blog, is that what you are saying? Where is the tolerance, man?
I got a couple of pennies on me, so here's my two cents worth..
The theory of evolution originated within the church several decades before Darwin. Darwin simply described a natural process through which isolated species would adapt to the local environment. His original draft of "On the Origin of species" reportedly did not specifically support evolution as it also allowed for devolution and and later differentiation of species. He was forced under threat of censure to amend his work to support evolution.
The concept of evolution implies that the adaptations move to a "higher" life form, and what constitutes the ultimate life form is arbitrary. Church doctrine considers man to be made in the image of God and therefore insists that man is the ultimate endpoint of evolution.
Sex is also one of those facts that defines man as an animal. This the church will deny. The idea of abstinence doesn't seem effective because the incentive to procreate is greater than any incentive to abstain. In the Middle east, in countries that practice biblical law, where the punishment for a woman who becomes pregnant without a husband is death by stoning, they still have unmarried girls that get pregnant. This is handled in different ways depending on the financial status of the girl. Wealthy families hide the girl during her pregnancy and the baby is adopted and raised by the child's grandparents who usually claim the child mother to have died during birth, or they have the daughter sent to live in Europe or the US where being an unwed mother does not carry a death sentence.
Poor families on the other hand, employ a simple type of abortion. The expectant mother is kicked in the stomach several times and if she survives, she usually loses the baby. (In case you wonder, my wife was born in Bethlehem to a Christian family and grew up over there).
The concept of Pro-choice encompasses all options for birth control including contraceptive drugs, condoms, IUDs and diaphragms. Abortion is considered a final option. Even when no preventative measures are taken, as many as 70 percent of pregnancies end with "spontaneous abortion", when for any of a dozen reasons, the mother's body rejects the embryo or fetus. (this last part was explained to my wife and me several years ago by my wife's obstetrician after she had a miscarriage.)
I have known several homosexuals over the years. One was a good friend of mine. I follow a live and let live policy. I do not attempt to convert them as long as they do not try to convert me. I figure that what goes on between consenting adults in private is private.
You know, I'm all for open-mindedness. But as my mother once told me, you shouldn't be so open minded that your brains fall out.
Erik, if you did indeed study Evolution, then it is clear you did not understand it. Perhaps it frightened you and you took refuge in a nice, safe fairy tale.
The problem with answering your comments is knowing where to begin. We don't have time here for the education you have apparently thrown away.
Have a nice life.
Niklaus Pfirsig
Man is the ultimate endpoint of creation not evolution. Get the facts straight if you want to weave in the Bible. Evolution is taught as a fact when in reality it is just a theory that cannot be reproduced in the lab (one of the steps of the scientific method).
You assume that sex is only about procreation. A very bad assumption I might add. The Bible teaches that sex is for procreation but also a gift for a husband and wife to enjoy (the 2nd command given to the first married couple was to have sex). A husband is also told to rejoice in the wife of his youth (in the context of the sexual relationship). The Bible actually commands that if the girl is not married or engaged then she is to marry the man who got her pregnant. Study the Bible a little more carefully before you make such bold accusations.
There is a huge difference between spontaneous abortions and forced abortions. My wife and I experienced a spontaneous abortion and I cannot image someone willfully murdering a child. It is hard enough to loose one spontaneously. So with pro-death, murder is legal option, that is what you are saying right? I understand that you must soften the reality in order to calm your conscious.
Live and let live would be great except for the fact that homosexuals do not follow that policy. They are working hard to teach our next generation (kindergartners) about what it means to be homosexual and how to become one. What need is there of a kindergartner to be taught about sexuality (more so homosexuality) when he barley knows the difference between his right and left hands. Homosexuals have an agenda and they promote their lifestyle everywhere. What right do they have to infringe upon my rights and the rights of my kids at will? Also we all live in society and what one does, especially with sexuality, affects others. What you do has a direct effect on others.
Mark Tiedemann
Evolution is a nice safe fairy tale. I wanted something that is real. I understand the theory quite well. I also understand junk when I see it. One of the steps of the scientific method is being able to be reproduced in the lab. Can you show me macro evolution in the lab? I think not!!!
Good cop out, if you cannot argue then just admit it and move on. Do not make excuses, when you loose you loose, it is ok, it happens
Erik: Your claims about "homosexuals" proves to me that you have never ever really gotten to know a homosexual. I know dozens of gay folks. Not one of them–I guarantee you–has ever thought it important to try to convert kindergarteners to be gay.
Perhaps you're mistaking tolerance for something else. I fully support telling young children that there are straight people and then there are gay people, and that we shouldn't hate or harass the gays just because they are different. But I'm afraid that tolerance gets blown WAY out of proportion by many conservatives, who confuse tolerance for training on how to be gay.
If you want to rebut this charge–I dare you to give me one credible bit of evidence that any gay person has ever tried to turn a straight kindergartener into a gay kindergartener.
And by the way, Erik. You lose (it's not "loose") on the topic of evolution. Every claim you have is completely untrue. The information is out there on the internet (check the science links on the DI home page), but it won't work unless your mind is open.
And no, you were never like me. You were never a serious skeptic or else you would never have become the way you are. I hope you have the courage someday to keep an open mind about these topics that scare you.
You wrote “Your claims about “homosexuals” proves to me that you have never ever really gotten to know a homosexual.”
Wow that is a pretty powerful statement, since you do not know anything about me. Again you guys all have the same argument. I have seen this very argument. I have known and know many homosexuals, as well as many former homosexuals so your statement is just wrong. Look at the sex ed books that want to be introduced to kindergartners, what else are they trying to do beside influence kids to choose to become homosexual. When trained professionals come and hold seminars in elementary schools on what homosexuality means and how you can become a homosexual I would consider that propaganda. Teaching children that homosexuality is wrong and a sin is not intolerance it is telling the truth. Do you realize how much higher the risk is of getting AIDS is for homosexuals? I do and have the proof to back it up, info from the beloved APA (American Psychological Association). I have a video of gay day in an elementary school in one of the New England States. Sorry about the misspelling, I was writing on the run and did not spell check. Show me something to prove me wrong on evolution, please. I have got a few questions for you on evolution, answer them with your beloved theory, if you can. I was very much so like you, very proud, thinking that I was so intelligent, yet not realizing how deceived I really was. I did have an open mind, when it came to the Word of God, obviously you do not open yours when dealing with the Scriptures. As I was able to change, so can you. There is hope for all.
Whoa, Erik, calm down. Breathe. When you are calmer, perhaps you can explain how homosexuals are infringing upon your rights. I have a hard time understanding what would make you think that.
A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere
[Admin note: Instead of long citations, post a link]
On the alleged "gay day," no links. Therefore, no way to tell if Erik is wildly spinning a day in which students are encouraged to be TOLERANT toward gays, rather than the wild claim Erik is making.
Erik,
Clearly you misunderstand the scientific method or you would know that "just a theory" is a moronic way to dismiss something. After all, gravity is "just a theory."
This isn't entirely your fault. Colloquially, people misuse the word all the time, intending it to stand for something provisional but not proven, whereas in science it means quite the opposite. But if you are indeed "so intelligent" then you would know that and stop throwing the phrase around as if you understand it.
Since Macro Evolution generally requires hundreds of generations to observe, it is simpler to see it on the micro, wherein generations pass in minutes, and there we see it in the lab ALL THE TIME. What do you think drug resistant disaeases are but evolved responses to environment? Somehow you see a disconnect, though, between the micro and the macro. Perhaps a classic misapprehension based on a misreading of quantum mechanics?
The problem here is that these arguments waste time, but they are like an itch you can't scratch. You're a hater, sir. It's clear in your rants againsts gays, as if somehow there is a gay conspiracy targeting you personally. You vehemence is clear in every line. But instead of finding a way out of the labyrinth of hate, your tack is to recruit others into it, which seems to validate it.
"If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother who he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?" 1 John 4:20
The most recent example of Evolution observed in the lab was discussed right here last June.
Where a species was observed to change by evolving a new trait that allowed it to eat a common substance that never was nutritive to it before.
Granted, creationists would argue that this is "micro" evolution. But it is a clear and reproducible demonstration that totally new traits do evolve spontaneously that allow a species to do things they were never able to do before, and the beneficial change sweeps the population in a few generations replacing the descendants of the less well adapted ancestors.
Here is the link. It was on youtube at one time but they pulled it (I wonder why?).
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwa…
Here is the link to the questions that evolution cannot answer.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105
NB
I do not agree with everything on this site but I do think that there are some good points here.
Vicki Baker
I have the right to keep my children, along with me, from being influenced by homosexuals. I personally do not want to have to explain to my kids why two men/women were kissing in public. I also do not want my kids to be taught about homosexuality by people who distort the facts (i.e. the sex ed book presented on this site). I do have the right to my views but homosexuals along with liberals want to force me to have to encounter homosexual doctrine wherever I turn (gay day parades/gay days in elementary schools), as well as influence my kids. That is a direct infringement upon my rights.
Here is a book forced into public schools by homosexual activists groups, it teaches 5 year old children about homosexuality and make people who do not agree with homosexuality out to be ignorant. It is classic brainwashing material. I do not have a link to the book but I have a scanned page, the book is entitled "Sexul Povestit celor mici" which is "Sex explained to children" It was designed for kids from 4-8 years old.
I tried to post some links earlier but it did not go through.
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwa…
Also here are the questions that evolution cannot answer
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105
NB
I do not agree with everything on this site but there is a lot of good stuff here.
why are my links not being posted?
[Admin note: I'm posting everything your sending, except for long passages from other sites, because they would exceed what is allowed by the fair use doctrine. If you're wondering why I don't approve every comment you send immediately, it's because I have a job and other responsibilities. I don't sit at a computer 24 hours every day].
Compare Erik's reasoning with this:
I have the right to keep my children, along with me, from being influenced by race-mixers and negro-lovers. I personally do not want to have to explain to my kids why a black man is kissing a white lady in public. I also do not want my kids to be taught that race is not a scientific concept by people who distort the facts. I do have the right to my views but negroes along with liberals want to force me to have to encounter race-mixing doctrine wherever I turn (civil rights marches/MLK days in elementary schools), as well as influence my kids. That is a direct infringement upon my rights.
Oh, I should clarify that in my above comment, I am not trying to suggest that Erik is a racist. My point is that there are people who have the sorts of attitudes I portrayed. Is it a violation of their "rights" for them to have to see an interracial couple kissing, or to share public facilities with those of other races?