FODDER FOR THE
INTELLECT IN A TIME OF SCARCITY
COMPILATION AND
COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
MAY 20, 2020
THE FOLLOWING
ARTICLES ARE MEANT TO BE THOUGHT STIMULANTS – ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION AND
CLIMATE CHANGE IN SCHOOLS. THEY INCLUDE SUGGESTED
LISTENING, AND THEN SOME READING – THIS PARTICULAR REACTION TO DAMAGING TALL
TALES IS ONE OF THE MORE FRIGHTENING FACTS ABOUT MODERN AMERICA TO ME. IN MY
JUNIOR YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL I WAS IN A DRAMA CLASS THAT WAS PARTICULARLY
INFORMATIONAL. THE TEACHER MENTIONED, FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAD HEARD IT,
THE IDEA OF “THE WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF,” WHICH IS WHAT WE DO WHEN WE
WATCH A DRAMA. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IT IS INVOLVED IN A CONSERVATIVE RELIGION OR
A POLITICAL GROUP SYNC VIEWPOINT AS WELL.
WHEN WE GIVE UP
OUR RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO QUESTION AND ANALYZE, WE ARE NOT ONLY, IN MY
VIEW, FOOLISH, BUT LITERALLY DAMAGING TO THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN AS WELL. SOMETHING
WHICH IS GOOD IN ART MAY BE VERY HARMFUL IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS. THE PODCAST BELOW
SPEAKS OF THE PUSH TO TEACH “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” ALONGSIDE OR IN THE PLACE OF
ACCEPTED BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE, SPECIFICALLY THE THEORY OF THE EVOLUTION FROM ONE
LIFE-FORM TO ANOTHER BY THE ACTION OF GENETIC MUTATION AND ADAPTATION TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. PHILLIP E JOHNSON, OF HARVARD LAW, IS ONE OF THE MAIN PROPONENTS
OF THIS IDEA. IN CASE YOU, LIKE ME, HAD NEVER HEARD OF PHILIP JOHNSON, READ
THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson .
IN HIS EARLY
CAREER AS A LAWYER, THINKER AND WRITER HE BELIEVED IN TEACHING DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.
LATER WHEN HE BECAME UNHAPPY WITH HIS LIFE, HE HAD A RELIGIOUS “CONVERSION,”
AFTER WHICH HE BEGAN TO SPEAK AGAINST IT. NOT ALL RELIGIONS PLACE THE SPECIFIC
WORDING OF PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE OR THE KORAN AS BEING THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE
SOURCE OF WISDOM AND INFORMATION IN GENERAL, THANK GOODNESS.
THE UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH THAT I GREW UP IN DIDN’T TEACH SUCH NEGATIVE DOCTRINES , BUT I DID HAVE A BRUSH WITH THAT TYPE
OF RELIGIOUS VIEW IN A BIBLE COURSE WHICH I TOOK AS AN ELECTIVE IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DON'T REMEMBER HAVING ANY CLASS IN THOSE YEARS THAT TAUGHT A NON-RELIGIOUS FORM OF LOGIC. THAT BIBLE CLASS NOT ONLY DISTURBED ME DEEPLY, IT TURNED ME AGAINST RELIGION IN GENERAL FOR
YEARS. I AM NOW A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST AND AM VERY COMFORTABLE. THAT CHURCH
IS BASICALLY WHAT IS CALLED “ETHICAL HUMANISM.” IT IS ABOUT JUSTICE AND GOOD
THINKING. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT VIEW. AFTER ALL, IF WE DON’T TEACH AND LEARN ETHICAL
ATTITUDES AND CRITICAL THINKING, WE ARE DIMINISHED RATHER THAN IMPROVED AS
PEOPLE AND THEREFORE AS A POPULATION. REASONING NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT YOUNG IN K-12, AND THEN AGAIN IN COLLEGE COURSEWORK.
THAT ANTI-SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE MILITATES AGAINST A JUST, EMPATHETIC, ETHICAL AND
THOUGHTFUL CULTURE SUCH AS OUR OWN AND REPLACES THOSE BELIEFS WITH “FAITH BASED”
DOGMA, ANTI-FEMINISM AND AUTHORITARIANISM. THIS NOT ONLY REDUCES THE CHANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS
TO LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE LIFE, BUT WILL ACTIVELY TEND TO PRODUCE PEOPLE WHO ALSO
ARE LESS INTELLIGENT AS AN EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION, RATHER THAN THE CHILDREN BORN MERELY BEING RELATIVELY UNDEREDUCATED. IT ALSO IS A FACTOR IN THE INSANITY THAT MORPHS AN OTHERWISE ETHICAL PERSON INTO THE KILLERS WHO TAKE THEIR WEAPON OR BOMB INTO A PUBLIC PLACE TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. WE SHOULD NOT BE
FOLLOWING SUCH A PATH IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN MODERN TIMES. WE HAVE HAD A CENTURY OR SO OF PUBLIC EDUCATION NOW, AND SHOULD BE PRODUCING BETTER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. WHILE IT IS PERFECTLY TRUE THAT EDUCATION IS NOT ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS, IT IS AN IMPORTANT BASIC PART OF THE SOLUTION.
QAnon Anonymous
Premium Episode
74: The Conspiracy To Teach...
12 MINS MAY 9,
2020
IN RELATION TO
THIS SUBJECT OF ANTI-THOUGHT, SEE THE LAW CASE KNOWN AS EDWARDS VS AGUILLARD ON THE
TEACHING OF A SPECIFIC RELIGION IN SCHOOL -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/578
THIS SHORT VIDEO
FROM AN EXCELLENT WEBSITE CALLED “BIGTHINK” SPEAKS TO THE EFFECT ON THOUGHT IN
THE MODERN-DAY USA OF ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM, CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE A POSITIVE GOOD.
I FEEL SURE THAT IT IS SO POPULAR NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ACCEPT EVERYTHING THEY
ARE TOLD DON’T MAKE WAVES. THEY’RE EASY TO USE AND DOMINATE, SO THEY MAKE GOOD
WORKERS IN BUSINESS OR MANUAL LABOR AT A CRIMINALLY LOW WAGE. WORSE STILL, THERE
IS ALSO A LITTLE KNOWN FACT THAT IN SOME PLACES OF THE USA IT WAS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL TO
TEACH A BLACK SLAVE TO READ AND WRITE. IT’S IN A CATEGORY WITH THE HOPEFULLY
JOKING STATEMENT MADE BY A MALE FRIEND DURING MY FIRST MARRIAGE THAT THE WAY TO
“HANDLE” A WOMAN IS TO “KEEP HER PREGNANT AND BAREFOOT.” HE WAS TEASING, BUT IT
MADE MY BLOOD DO A SLOW SIMMER ANYWAY.
I KNOW THIS ISN’T
A NEW ISSUE IN AMERICAN CULTURE, BUT ANTI-EVOLUTIONISM IS PARTICULARLY ACTIVE
NOW, RIDING ON THE COATTAILS OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. IT IS FOSTERING SOME
VIEWS THAT ARE DELETERIOUS TO THE BEST IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FROM CHILDHOOD UP
TO OLD AGE, AND EVEN THE EXPERIENCES OF OUR LIVES ON EARTH. PERSONALLY, I
BELIEVE THAT MY LIFE IS A ONE-TIME OCCURRENCE, AND SHOULD BE EXPLORED AND
ENJOYED, THOUGH NOT IN AN UNETHICAL WAY, OF COURSE.
3:50 MIN.
DURATION
How religion
turned American politics against science | Kurt Andersen
297,850 views •
Jan 18, 2018
UPS 9.2K
DOWNS 1K
ON TEACHING A
BLACK SLAVE TO READ, SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_period .
“BIGTHINK” IS A
SERIES OF PODCASTS BY WELL-KNOWN AMERICAN OR WORLD THINKERS. IT IS FOUND AT: https://www.youtube.com/user/bigthink .
LEHIGH
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR MICHAEL BEHE SPEAKS ON WHY HE NOW BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, AND WANTS IT TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I CAN’T AGREE, BUT HERE ARE HIS
VIEWS.
“Intelligent
design” backer takes stand in Pennsylvania
By THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED:
October 17, 2005 at 5:05 p.m. | UPDATED: May 8, 2016 at 6:48 a.m.
PHOTOGRAPH -- Lehigh
University professor Michael Behe, a leading advocate of teaching
“intelligent design” in addition to the theory of evolution, talks to
reporters Monday outside the federal court in Harrisburg, Pa.
Harrisburg, Pa.
– A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of “intelligent design”
testified Monday that evolution alone can’t explain complex biological
processes and he believes God is behind them.
Lehigh
University professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school
board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent
design concept in biology class.
Lawyers for the
Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark
federal trial, which could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned
in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution.
Behe, whose
work includes a 1996 best-seller called “Darwin’s Black Box,”
said students should be taught evolution because it’s widely used in science
and that “any well-educated student should understand it.”
Behe, however,
argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities
of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.
The intelligent
design concept does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic,
testified he personally believes it to be God.
“I conclude
that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors,” he
said.
The school board
is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on
intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The
statement says Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact,” has inexplicable
“gaps,” and refers students to a textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more
information.
Behe
contributed to “Of Pandas and People,” writing a section about
blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a
scientific argument that blood-clotting “is poorly explained by Darwinian
processes but well explained by design.”
Eight families
sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending
the policy essentially promotes the Bible’s view of creation and violates the
separation of church and state.
Mainstream
scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested
and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory
rather than providing evidence for design.
Behe testified
that intelligent design specifically questions whether life at the molecular
level evolved through natural selection.
“That’s the
most poorly supported aspect of Darwin’s theory,” he said.
I AM HEARTENED
TO SEE THAT SEVERAL REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN DRUMMED OUT OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY FOR
THEIR INDEPENDENT THINKING: JEFF FLAKE, BOB CORKER AND JUSTIN AMASH, FOR INSTANCE.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTARY CONCERNING A HUMBLER REPUBLICAN’S CONVERSION EXPERIENCE, VOLUNTARY
IN HIS CASE, IS HEART WARMING AND ENCOURAGING TO ME.
NEWS
I Guess I’m A
Democrat Now: I’m leaving the Republican Party — here’s why you should too
JAN 22, 2020
BY AARON PRICE
I didn’t
originally vote for President Obama… But man oh man, I miss him.
Well, crap. How
did this happen?
I don’t have
the wisdom, or wit, of George Will. I’m not a defecting GOP congressman. Nor
state representative. Not even a retired party elder saying what others won’t.
But, I’m not
politically apathetic. I was a door knocker for a Republican congresswoman. I
interned for the GOP get out the vote effort in 2004. I had a leadership
position in College Republicans. More recently, as a lawyer and political consultant,
I helped elect numerous Republicans in four states while flipping the State
House in one and the State Senate in another.
On paper, I’m
that “five for five” primary voter that steadfast party loyalist politics is
built on — and I’m leaving the Republican Party.
That
discrepancy, between paper and reality, is just one of those contradictions
that defines modern American life.
I’m a
well-educated, straight, white man from one of the whitest and politically
reddest states in the country. I regularly (OK, semi-regularly) attend church.
My wife is one of our deacons. I’m a small business owner who, without
exaggeration, would likely have to close our business upon the passage of
progressive policies.
My family tree
is more military than civilian. After 22 years in the Marine Corps, my father
told me that one of his only career regrets was that he retired in early 1993
instead of a tad sooner. He wanted George H.W. Bush to have signed his papers
instead of Bill Clinton.
Both my parents
are Republicans.
I’m privileged.
Those same parents, still married, have worked hard to improve their economic
circumstances throughout my life. At every turn, like their parents before
them, they have sacrificed to help me do the same.
Even when we
had very little money, they spent time and energy teaching me, supporting me,
and ensuring I was taken care of. My wife’s parents fit that same mold.
We’ve worked
long hours to build a stable life for our family (and we’ve got a seemingly
endless distance yet to go) — but I’ve never quite had to face the economic,
systemic or prejudicial obstacles that others have.
I’ve been able
to do it all with the belief that, no matter what, everything will be OK. I’ve
had a personal safety net of support — emotional and financial — that many
others don’t.
I’m a father. A
dad who loves data. Is that a dadatician? Wocka wocka! (My kids are 2 and 4, so
I’m working on my dad jokes.)
Like my parents
and every other parent I know, I want my kids to grow up in a world that is
better than the one I grew up in. I want them to have a shot at a better life
and a better America.
And, as I look
at the data — that’s becoming increasingly unlikely. The joint combination of
the GOP’s eroding principles and the U.S.’s emerging challenges has pushed me
to the point of switching parties.
Somehow,
without trying and while avoiding it as long as possible, I’ve become a
Democrat.
I’m not quite
comfortable in my new political skin. I struggle with the idea of joining a
party I disagree with rhetorically and, in some ways, culturally. Where I do
rhetorically relate, I disagree with the party’s ideas. I’m not sure I can
support many of its candidates outright — but you’re welcome to join me on the
Yang Gang.
I haven’t
changed my core beliefs, and Justin Amash (also no longer a Republican) remains
one of my favorite members of Congress. But, even if they differ only in scope
or scale, the partisan distinctions of old seem more like a relic of time gone
by than a prescription for the future.
The world has
changed, or is changing, and it seems that many of our core economic
assumptions just don’t fit the challenges that lie before us.
I didn’t
“choose” the Democratic Party. I still believe that most of their proposed
solutions evince a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and business.
I believe that most of their ideas come with dark, unintended consequences that
will harm the very people they seek to help. But in the end, I’d rather debate
the people whose hearts are in the right place than those whose heads are in
the sand.
And so to the
extent there is a “choosing,” I’m sandwiched between what I believe to be bad
ideas and an intellectually bankrupt opposition that increasingly has no ideas
at all.
I tried to
describe the modern GOP platform. I thought it might help me figure out why I
don’t feel at home anymore. The problem? I have no idea what it is.
I’m not sure
the GOP actually has a real platform outside of “Making America Great Again” or
combining increased governmental borrowing with tax cuts and increased military
spending. It has a policy agenda dead set on short-term gain for a specific
subset of people.
It’s willingly
blind to the troubles we increasingly face.
As long as the
stock market is high, there won’t be nary a peep about how everyday people are
increasingly squeezed by the rising combined cost of housing, healthcare, fuel
and food.
As long as
unemployment remains low, you won’t hear about underemployment. Nor are there
proposals to deal with the consequences of automation. Their plan to address
globalization seems to be demonizing everyone else around the globe.
The president
doesn’t really have a foreign policy. The party doesn’t really have a backbone,
so now it doesn’t have a foreign policy, either. But hey, we abandoned the
Kurds for no strategic gain, and we just took one more step toward war.
There’s no real
plan to control healthcare costs.
They aren’t
small-government conservatives anymore — they’ve voted for increased spending
at every turn.
They aren’t
no-one-is-above-the-law anti-elitists — they turn a blind eye to the
president’s increasing corruption and profiteering.
They aren’t in
favor of free trade and free markets — they gleefully support tariffs that are
hurting America more than anyone else.
To make matters
worse, the Republican Party has not only abandoned its core conservative
principles but has seemingly abandoned reality.
Just two years
ago, a slew of respected conservative economists and advisors argued that:
The opposition
of many Republicans to meaningfully address climate change reflects poor
science and poor economics and is at odds with the party’s own noble tradition of
stewardship.
Does it feel
like we’ve made any headway since then? Nope. The administration is, instead,
scrubbing the words from its website.
The party that
routinely mocked liberals for their “bleeding hearts” has emotionally chosen to
ignore the facts.
It shouldn’t
have to feel like pulling teeth to get someone to acknowledge that:
Having the
highest incarceration rate in the world is both unnecessary and shameful.
The war on
drugs has failed.
Our
complicated, government-driven and anti-competitive healthcare system is more
expensive and less universal than those of every other developed nation.
Increased
immigration has been good for the economy and helped limit the impact of our
aging population.
We are
underspending on infrastructure and accruing huge liabilities via deferred
maintenance.
We have too
much rent-seeking, regulatory capture and corruption.
The 2018 tax
cuts did not “pay for themselves” and have only increased deficit spending.
Climate change
is real. This one is particularly vexing — have modern Republicans just stopped
going outside these last few years?
It gets even
worse when shifting from policy and cost to principles and character.
Can you imagine
the outrage if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, then didn’t divest conflicts
of interest and let Chelsea Clinton control her finances? If it was patently
obvious that the president and her family were profiting off the presidency
itself?
At virtually
every turn, the president has sought to advance his own interest through his
office and at the expense of anyone in his way. As long as it gets the judges
it wants, I guess the GOP won’t do a thing to stop him.
Sure, just like
President Trump, AOC shares a shocking proclivity to bend facts and attack
anyone who challenges her.
Elizabeth
Warren’s most well-known plan is to replicate European failure.
Bernie Sanders
doesn’t acknowledge either the lessons learned from failed socialist states or
the free market and free trade reforms of his Nordic examples. I’ve got a lot
of issues with these three, but that’s for a different piece.
For me, what it
comes down to is this:
Democrats paint
with too broad of brush. They’re every bit as partisan. They have their own
issues with ideology — including a problem with large centralized businesses
but a blind spot for an increasingly large and centralized government.
They speak
holistically and evaluate their plans in isolation. Their economics can be shaky.
Their evidence untested.
And yet…
The evidence
regarding the problems they are trying to solve is quite real. They have
legitimate debates about solutions.
The Republicans
can’t participate in those debates because they won’t acknowledge underlying
facts. Despite growing consensus and mounting evidence on a number of fronts,
the Republicans have seemingly become deniers in every degree.
In some cases,
the GOP has led an all out assault on science, facts and truth.
Shouldn’t we
have:
A system of
shared prosperity with a broad social safety net, including some type of
universal healthcare?
A restrained
and engaging foreign policy that responds to global trends, ensures peace and
protects the environment?
A morally just
and inviting immigration policy that benefits the economy and promotes the
“American Dream”?
A society where
we have access to clean air, clean water and public land?
A government
that roots out corruption, prosecutes corporate crime and preserves the free
market?
An economy that
promotes entrepreneurship while also endeavoring to protect those most harmed
by the transition to an information age?
A plan to
reform the criminal justice system, end mass incarceration and begin repairing
the damage done by Jim Crow laws and modern segregation?
A modern tax
system that isn’t rigged in favor of the rich and powerful?
An upgrade to
our declining infrastructure and more investment in research with broad, public
application but little private incentive to pursue?
Ultimately, I
don’t think any of these ideas are that controversial. Or, at least they
shouldn’t be.
Republicans
once advocated for free trade, free markets, environmental conservation,
universal basic incomes, increased immigration and pathways to citizenship.
They were civil libertarians concerned with abuses of police power and
skeptical of foreign interventionism. They funded and advanced infrastructure
projects.
Milton
Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and adviser to Ronald Reagan, once
wrote:
“Suppose one
accepts, as I do, this line of reasoning as justifying governmental action to
alleviate poverty; to set, as it were, a floor under the standard of living of
every person in the community.”
What did F.A.
Hayek, conservative stalwart and another Nobel Prize winner, think?
“The assurance
of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody
need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be
a wholly legitimate protection against a common risk to all, but a necessary
part of a Great Society … “
They weren’t
alone.
Richard Nixon
almost implemented a minimum income in 1969. Who oversaw his initial Universal
Basic Income experiments? Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
Teddy
Roosevelt’s legacy is one great quote and 230 million acres of public land.
Dwight Eisenhower helped create interstate highways. Reagan and George W. Bush
both supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
It’s not just
social issues either.
Which party do
you hear talk about corruption and the rules of the game?
Which one is
concerned with combating technical monopolies?
Which wants to
evaluate our systems as we enter the information age?
We’ve somehow
reached the point where anyone who reads the above largely assumes I’m a
dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
These ideas
have not just fallen out of Republican favor, but the very ideas underlying
them have fallen out of the Republican platform.
Leaving the GOP
is easy.
But, what do you
do when you agree with one party’s premises while abhorring their conclusions?
When the other isn’t premised on much of anything? If you don’t want to end up
independently irrelevant, where do you go?
Someday the
Democratic Party might split, and we’ll see the rise of a moderate/centrist
party focused on practical solutions to everyday problems instead of using them
to pursue a broad ideological agenda. It can be home to independents as well as
disaffected Ds and Rs.
Until then,
whether I’ve intentionally chosen them or not — I guess these are my people
now.
So, here I am.
A Democrat.
I’m
uncomfortable, but I’m OK.
That’s more
than I can say for the party I called home. The party of the free market,
checks and balances, the rule of law, principles and restraint — the party
acutely aware of the corrupting power of government — abandoned all of that in
blind loyalty to an authoritarian strongman and a small cadre of crony
corporatists getting rich at our expense.
That’s just not
a party I can be party to. •
Aaron Price is
a lawyer, business owner and political consultant.
Published under
News
COMMENTS
Lnms Warner
Thank you so
much for seeing the light and having the courage to follow it!
Like · Reply ·
1m
Lori Craddick
Lynch
Could you
exapnd on this: "I’m a small business owner who, without exaggeration,
would likely have to close our business upon the passage of progressive
policies." What could you be doing that doesn't, at its core, have a basic
respect for people and the planet? Or is this a bit of that overblown fear that
as soon as a Dem is in the WH that the wages will suddenly jump 20% and you'll
have to use composting toilets?
Like · Reply ·
7 · 16w
Jane Sparks
Tatum
Welcome to the
Dems- we like and need your understanding and thoughtfulness, though I believe
you still have a little Kool Aid hangover. The only analogy I can offer to your
experience is my religious upbringing and education as a Southern Baptist
(lifelong church, college and seminary) as we experienced the "wars"
of the '80's, '90's and beyond as the right wing hijacked my Jesus - the one
who talked about "as you have done it unto the least of these, you have
done it also to me". As I watched and experienced the dissolution and
degradation of the Jesus of the Bible and a host of institutions, someone near
and dear to me explained the conservative movement as one that knew how to tear
down institutuons but had no ideas or plans on how to replace them. That is a
simple framework that helps me understand what has happened to the GOP.
Doug Jones
Jane this is my
exact road.
I am now Cooperative Baptist and Democrat after life long allegiances.
Jane Sparks
Tatum
Doug Jones I
have always been a Democrat, so no stretch there - I actually grew up thinking
that Republicanism and Christianity were incompatible - I try to be non-judgey
but more and more difficult. Still a recovering Baptist and in a progressive
church.
Russell Byrd
Jane Sparks
Tatum the phrase, "kool-aid hangover," is priceless, and oh, so true.
I will have to keep that one in mind. As well, Pubism and Christianity can
never be compatible. We are supposed to be followers of a man that was poor,
taught the virtue of being poor, and the need to take care of others. Add to
that the teaching that we should not judge, and it is obvious to any decent
person what the truth is. The problem is not with liberal Christians, or even
atheists, but with those practicing hate in Christ's name that think they will
be rewarded for refusing the teachings of the man they claim as Master.
**** ****
**** ****
No comments:
Post a Comment