Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Officeilly Evolution

Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Officeilly Evolution

|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by Frederick Meekins
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office

More info:

Published by: Frederick Meekins on Jul 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office
Despite differing perches along the political spectrum, in separate segments on the 8/29/11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams, Bernard Goldberg, and Kinky Friedman each made snidecomments against candidates for the Presidency that did not embrace evolution as part of their respective individual worldviews.Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over hisEpiscopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuatedthat one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does notenthusiastically embrace Darwinism.Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and boltsissues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse.These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you arefrom ACLU types.Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believingthe world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given theworthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenchedtechnocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strapsticks of dynamite to their chests.Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world cameinto existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian thatactually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's mostfundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhapswe should examine these assumptions a little more closely.Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are nounaltering realities or lasting principles.For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the rightto bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisionsaren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivistwould argue.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->