San Antonio shooting

Saw this on Facebook:

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.

Source

Agenda revealed! If you had any doubts that the media was pushing for this and who their masters were, doubt no longer. This is spooky. Alot of what you read in the ‘conspiracy world’ is bull but there IS alot of truth too.. You just have to sort out the facts yourself. -Mort

Attempted murder unfortunately is never as sexy as murder. He didn't shoot his girlfriend, she was not at the restaurant.[3] His pistol jammed when he attempted to shoot up the restaurant. [1] Also, he was not as heavily armed as the Newtown shooter. A Glock 23 .40 has a standard magazine of 13 rounds with an optional magazine of 15 or 17.[2] [3] If Garcia had had a better working weapon with a larger magazine and more fire power like in Newtown, he may have been more effective.

Millions of these part two

I have left in color the four that we are going to be discussing.

I wrote a couple of days ago about some of the things that were wrong with this meme.  With over 400 shares and counting, let's visit another thing.  The man who posted the meme follows Answers in Genesis (AiG) on Facebook.  I don't know if he knows, but various people at AiG have claimed at times that the four individuals left in color were fully human.

Homo erectus is the gentleman to the left of the naked bearded man.   Homo erectus is almost universally recognized by AiG as being fully human. [1] [2]  Dr. Kurt Wise thinks they built the Tower of Babel.

Preserved in post-Flood sediments older than any Neanderthals and Hobbits are Homo erectus fossils.3 Aside from the skull, Homo erectus skeletons are virtually indistinguishable from modern humans, so the evidence indicates they are human. And, since humans did not disperse across the world until after Babel, the distribution of Homo erectus across the Old World (Java, China, Africa) suggests they not only date from after the Flood, they also date from after Babel. Homo erectus is thus not only the oldest human fossil we have following Babel but the only human fossil for some time after Babel. From this we infer that the Homo erectus form is probably what humans looked like at the time of Babel. [3] 

Dr. Dewitt's grouping

Homo habilis, the third from the right, generally is not considered to be human by AiG.  However there are some exceptions to that rule.  The habilis skull, KNM-ER 1470 is almost said to be human by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. [4]  In "Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin", Dr. Todd Charles Wood identified habilis as human.

[T]he dispersal of the human population from Babel would presumably have been led by H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, specimens of which appear stratigraphically lower than any other human species. [5]

Wood also placed an Australopith, Australopithecus sediba, in the human taxa.[5]  When the question of what is human is so up in the air, it is very disingenuous to mock the fossil record.  Four out of the six have been called human by Answers in Genesis.

A Christmas Carol

There was a boy walking the streets on Christmas morn?  The butcher was open?  The cabs were working?  Is Dickens raising a war on Christmas? LOL

Running to the window, he opened it, and put out his head. No fog, no mist; clear, bright, jovial, stirring, cold; cold, piping for the blood to dance to; Golden sunlight; Heavenly sky; sweet fresh air; merry bells. Oh, glorious. Glorious!

"What's to-day?" cried Scrooge, calling downward to a boy in Sunday clothes, who perhaps had loitered in to look about him.

"Eh?" returned the boy, with all his might of wonder.

"What's to-day, my fine fellow?" said Scrooge.

"To-day?" replied the boy. "Why, Christmas Day."

"It's Christmas Day!" said Scrooge to himself. "I haven't missed it. The Spirits have done it all in one night. They can do anything they like. Of course they can. Of course they can. Hallo, my fine fellow!"

"Hallo!" returned the boy.

"Do you know the Poulterer's, in the next street but one, at the corner?" Scrooge inquired.

"I should hope I did," replied the lad.

"An intelligent boy!" said Scrooge. "A remarkable boy! Do you know whether they"ve sold the prize Turkey that was hanging up there -- Not the little prize Turkey: the big one?"

"What, the one as big as me?" returned the boy.

"What a delightful boy!" said Scrooge. "It's a pleasure to talk to him. Yes, my buck."

"It's hanging there now," replied the boy.

"Is it?" said Scrooge. "Go and buy it."

"Walk-er!" exclaimed the boy.

"No, no," said Scrooge, "I am in earnest. Go and buy it, and tell them to bring it here, that I may give them the direction where to take it. Come back with the man, and I'll give you a shilling. Come back with him in less than five minutes and I'll give you half-a-crown."

The boy was off like a shot. He must have had a steady hand at a trigger who could have got a shot off half so fast.

"I'll send it to Bon Cratchit's!" whispered Scrooge, rubbing his hands, and splitting with a laugh. "He shan't know who sends it. It's twice the size of Tiny Tim. Joe Miller never made such a joke as sending it to Bob's will be!"

The hand in which he wrote the address was not a steady one, but write it he did, somehow, and went down-stairs to open the street door, ready for the coming of the poulterer's man. As he stood there, waiting his arrival, the knocker caught his eye.

"I shall love it, as long as I live!" cried Scrooge, patting it with his hand. "I scarcely ever looked at it before. What an honest expression it has in its face. It's a wonderful knocker. -- Here's the Turkey. Hallo! Whoop! How are you? Merry Christmas!"

It was a Turkey! He never could have stood upon his legs, that bird. He would have snapped them short off in a minute, like sticks of sealing-wax.

"Why, it's impossible to carry that to Camden Town," said Scrooge. "You must have a cab."

The chuckle with which he said this, and the chuckle with which he paid for the Turkey, and the chuckle with which he paid for the cab, and the chuckle with which he recompensed the boy, were only to be exceeded by the chuckle with which he sat down breathless in his chair again, and chuckled till he cried.[1]

British wee

Who doesn't think that they are alive?

This is the second generation of this strawman that I have seen on Facebook.  I used to think that everyone knew that it was a strawman, until I started seeing friends repeat it and someone posted it in one of the threads that I was commenting on.  OK, first watch this Sesame Street video to learn what is alive.  

Does that Paramecium on the left, breath and eat and grow? [1]  Certainly it does.  Does that 24 to 26 week old fetus on the right, breath and eat and grow? [2]  Certainly she does. (Human embryos and fetuses generally default to the female gender) So who is saying that a growing fetus with sleep cycles and a 40-90% chance of surviving outside of the womb [3] is not "life"?  The answer is no one.  Also, 88% of abortions happen in the first twelve weeks.  Only 1.5% of abortions are performed on fetuses over 20 weeks. [4] Most people who get abortions do not wish to terminate fetuses over 20 weeks.  Let's try this next one.

The picture is of a one hour old single cell embryo. [5] Now let's try the Sesame Street test.  Does she breath and eat and grow? Certainly she does.  Who dares to challenge the wisdom of the muppets? The answer is no one.  

At an hour old, this single cell has an up hill battle.  About 19.6 out of every 1000 women annually will have an abortion.  This means that 22% of pregnancies will end in abortion [4], but this embryo only has about a 30-70% of even implanting in the uterus to transition from conception to pregnancy. [6]  Even if she implants, she may not implant in the uterus.  Ectopic pregnancies occur at 19.3 out of every 1000 pregnancies or about 2% of pregnancies. [7] Once implanted correctly, she still has about a 31% chance of miscarrying. [8] Things get a little more dicey when you considered that one out of eight embryos form twins, but only one out of 80 twins make it to birth. [9] All of this adds up to the embryo having as great as a 70% chance of not surviving to birth [8].

Tubal Pregnancy

I type all of that to point out that when a embryo dies or miscarries, those terms mean that it was considered life to begin with.  The question is not whether she is life, but whether she is a person.  The irony here is that the first meme equates pond scum with a fetus.

Correction 12/5/2012: This post originally said that 19.6% of 1000 pregnancies end in abortion.  This was an error on my part.  It should have said 1000 women.  The abortion rate is about 11 times the ectopic pregnancy rate.  I apologize for the error.  

Sunday America and Sunday Africa

Someone posted this meme to Facebook, so I thought I would comment on it.  In the upper left is "Black Friday".  Upper right is "Sunday America".  On the bottom is "Sunday Africa."

America generally refers to US citizens. [1] But there are 300 million plus people in this country and about 40% of them attend church almost weekly. [2] (The particular church in question is a small Calvinist congregation of 25-50. [3]) Less than one half of one percent of American churches are mega churches and they are attended by 10% of all church attendees.  Half of the approximately 120 million church attendees attend the top 10% of churches. [4]  While most churches in the America may look like the church in question, there are many churches in this country where thousands attend every Sunday.  Of the approximately 12 million people who attend mega churches, 30,000 attend Lakewood Church on Sunday mornings. [5]

This brings us that bottom picture.  Africa is not a country, but a continent populated by over a billion people who are spread out over 54 nations. [6] This picture was taken for a 2009 revival in Maua, Kenya. [7]  Those who took the picture only counted about 3000, about 10% of those that attend Lakewood regularly.  Also, though the revival went till Sunday, this was not a normal Sunday service.

Black Friday 2011, a record number, 226 million Americans, shopped at retail stores.  Surely they did not all wait in long lines before sunrise.  Still, more Americans shopped than attend church regularly.  Yet "regularly" is the key word.  The revival service in Maua is not a weekly event and neither is Black Friday.  For that matter only 40% of Americans attend church while 78.4% profess to be Christians. [8]

Like most memes this picture is very misleading and borderline ignorant.  Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on earth, yet it is treated as if it were a country. [9] Also, two out of three of the pictures do not refer to a weekly event.

OK, I could be wrong but...gun laws...

Whenever a Facebook meme makes a claim like this, my red flags go off.  Here is the claim.

• 25 States allow someone to carry a gun down the street with no permit of any kind
• 4/5 murders are committed in the other half of the country.

OK, I assume that Andrew is talking about "open carry" states where you can carry your weapon as long as it is not concealed.  My source for these states is OpenCarry.org. [1]  I know this type of source is very unlike me, but I used them to verify the maps I altered from another questionable source Wikipedia. [2]   My source for homicides is much better.  Though four years old, I used the Deaths: Final Data for 2009, made available by the CDC. [3]  Even though, it is older, it should provide a base in which to verify Andrew's quote.  After all, he is alleging that less gun laws cut down on murder.  

Right off the bat, we run into problems.  There are twelve "open carry" states, not 25.  Added together, they had 2018 murders in 2009 and represented 12.01% of the total murders.   Andrew may have begun talking about crime rates in his next sentence and he should have.  A state with high population and a low rate could put out as many murders as a state with low population, but a high rate.  In 2009, the national homicide rate was 5.5 out of 100,000.  Four "open carry" states (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina) were above the national average that year.  So 75% of "open carry" states were below the national average, but that is only eight states.  

There are fifteen licensed carry states where you can apply for a license to "open carry".  These states combined counted for 3081 murders in 2009.  They represented 18.34% of all murders.  With stricter gun laws, only three of these states (Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee)  had a homicide rate higher than the national average.  So 80% of the licensed carry states were below the national average.

In case you were wondering 20 states were at or above the national average.  As mentioned already, only four of them were "open carry" and only three were licensed carry.  I don't know if this has necessarily anything to do with open display of fire arms.  Alabama's homicide rate is lower than Georgia's and much lower than Mississippi's.  With the exception of Kentucky and Virginia, the South was equal to or higher than the national average.

Anyways, let's just evaluate the claim.  There are not 25 states with "open carry".  Even if you add licensed carry, you run over to 27 states.  Yes, almost 9/10 murders occur in not open carry states, but that was not the claim.  The claim was that half the states, with stricter gun laws, account for 80% of the murders.  Licensed carry and "open carry" combined amount to about 30.35% of all the murders.  This leaves about 69.65% account for by the stricture states.  While this may be more than 2/3, look at the states in question.  Many of them have lower populations and produce less murders.  Even with a higher homicide rate of 8.7, New Mexico put out less than half of the homicides of Arizona with their  5.9 rate.   Yet the main point is that it is not the 4/5 claimed.

Praise God that someone "figured out" that the Bible says "trust God".

I am just thinking now about decades of sermons about "how to know God's will?", "Are we living in the end times?", "How to know that you know," "how to pray", "spiritual gift tests", books by Chuck Smith, C.S. Lewis, MacArthur, Piper, years of Greek and Hebrew classes, and apologetics. God may have it all figured out, but He really makes it difficult to find out. Let's not even get into the thousands of years of hard work that it took, just to get the Bible to the point that we can make this Facebook meme. Also, church history is about people trying to "figure it out". ugh...

Banned in Chicago...on display in Boston

If it is a Facebook meme, it most likely is not true.  The first image is of a nativity that was donated to Arlington Heights Park District.  The park turned down the donation and the donor lawyered up.  However, the park said that the donor never filled out the proper paper work.

But Timothy Riordan, the attorney for the Arlington Heights Park District, said Finnegan had simply never filled out an application for a permit. Instead, he asked the district to accept a donation of a nativity they didn’t want.
“In our view there’s no real controversy,” Riordan said.

He sent Finnegan’s lawyer an application for a park use permit on Nov. 26.

“He wanted to donate the nativity scene to the park district," Riordan said. "The park district indicated it wasn’t interested in accepting that donation. The park always had a holiday display and just didn’t think it was consistent with the display they’d had in the past. If you want to use a park for any purpose, there’s a form.”

Finnegan said Tuesday that he plans to apply for a permit to place the nativity in a different part of the same park. [1]

The second image is of a painting on display at Boston's Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery.

“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”

“The crucifixion of the president was meant metaphorically,” he continued. “My intent was not to compare him to Jesus.”

D’Antuono blamed the controversy on conservative media “trying to promote the idea that liberals believe the president to literally be our savior.” [2]

 So we have a nativity that is not banned in Chicago and a painting in an art gallery.  These Facebook memes should be sourced.  More to the point, the nativity display is intended on public land.  I would guess that there are many nativities displayed in Chicago this time of year.

Millions of these

The picture was captioned, "Darwin's Folly"

Flickr

I saw the picture above on Facebook and thought that this would be the appropriate forum to write something. The chart points to a quadrupedal ape on the left and a Homo sapien on the right and alleges that there are "millions of these". Then it asks, "so where are the millions of these?"

This Facebook meme seems to be an edited picture of the one on the right. The farthest to the left is not named,  but it is probably not a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes[1] and paniscus[2]).  Second on the chart is the Spanish "hominidos" which in English is the Family "Hominidae".  Within the Hominidae family are the genera: Pan (Chimps), Pongo (Orangutan), Gorilla, and Homo.[3]  Also included are extinct genera: Orrorin, Ardipithecus,  Australopithecus and Paranthropus.[4]  The second does not represent a genus or species, but an entire family.

Nature

With the discussion of the second, let us return to the first.   The skull marking the second is very similar to a chimpanzee, however the image has the second as a clear biped.  Still, the canines are also more prominent in Ardipithecus.  The feet also have a prominent thumb like toe that is also similar to the genus Ardipithecus.  So this is probably meant to emulate the Ardipiths.

What about the first one?  There are a couple of reasons that it is probably not meant to be a chimp.  One, human beings are not supposed to have evolved from chimps.  Chimps and Humans are hypothesized to share a common ancestor about 8 to 5 million years ago.  Fossil chimps were not even discovered until 2005.  They were dated at around half a million years old and were impossible "to say whether they belonged to the same species as modern chimps" "or to some unnamed, now extinct ancestor".[5]    Still, it is very unlikely that the image is trying to demonstrate that Ardipithecus,  Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo all evolved from Pan or that Pan is older than Australopithecus.  Further, Dawkins noted in An Ancestor's Tale, "We must not assume, as many laymen do, that our ancestors were chimpanzees."[6]

The third from the left is the genus Australopithecus.   Despite Lucy (afarensis) being the most well known, there are at least six species of Australopith: anamensis, afarensis, bahrelghazali, africanus, garhi,[7] and sediba.  The previously mentioned Ardipithecus genus contains two species: kadabba and ramidus.[8]  Why is this important?  Do you remember the question?  "So where are the millions of these?"  There are only two known species of the genus Pan, yet there are about 300,000 troglodytes [9] and 20,000 paniscus [10].  Despite the fact that there are not "millions" of Pan left alive, the Facebook meme seems to suggest that six species of Australopiths alone could not produce a population of millions or be representative of a genus comparable in population to Pan.

The next skull on the chart is for the genus Paranthropus which contains three species: boisei, aethiopicus, and robustus [11].  The Paranthropus genus, however, is not represented by a figure.  Moving on, the next three are a select three species from the genus Homo.  The first is Homo habilis [12].  Habilis and Homo rudolfensis are thought to be among the earliest representatives of the genus.  Next is Homo erectus. [13]  More than 50 individuals were found at just one site and they have been found throughout Africa and Asia.[14] The final figure is Homo sapien.

Summing up, the animal to the left is probably not a chimpanzee.  Even if it is, I hope the point is clear, even with only showing three species from Homo, there are abundant fossils for that genus.  Also the other two genera cited also have abundant fossils.  Any of these genera dwarf the chimpanzee fossil record by a mile.  Also the Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo genera are represented by more species than the genus Pan.

PS - The meme on Facebook (with over 300 shares) is captioned "Darwin's Folly".  When Darwin wrote Origin of the Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871), only Homo sapiens were known to science.  Darwin hypothesized the existence of the other species.  This seems more like a successful prediction of Darwin's theory rather than a folly.

Sanchez kisses butt (butt fumble)

John Leland

Under this head, I would remark, that there is a common saying, “that a republican government is the best in the world if people only have virtue enough to bear it.” If people had virtue enough, there would be no need of any government. Government becomes necessary on account of the vices of men. …Those who so frequently are making the above observation, should do all they can to save and foster that government which they own is best; but for the most part, the remark is made by men who are wishing to sap the foundation of republican government, trick the people out of their liberties, and raise themselves to a state of preeminence above the control of others.

~ John Leland – “Republicanism, the Best Government; but not without its evils”

Sins of our Forerunners (Separation of Church and State)

A week or two ago someone mentioned something about "those who believe the lie of separation of Church and State". Normally this is combined with the idea that "separation of church and state" is a myth and is not in the Constitution. Yet if it was a myth, lie, or unconstitutional, the idea is clearly a Baptist and Southern Baptist lie/myth. Baptists, including Southern Baptists were claiming that the state and church should remain separate as part of their "religious liberty" and "soul liberty" theologies. Honestly if leaders of the SBC had not perpetuated this idea for at least a century I doubt that the courts would have picked it up.

Now you may disagree with "separation of Church and State". Also, there are those that disagree on the boundaries of what is an establishment and what should be permitted under free exercise. Fine, but it was a basic Baptist tenet until recently. For those that are Baptists, we understand that all Baptist theology is up for debate. We just need to know that the debate is not between Atheists and Baptists, but devout Southern Baptists and devout Southern Baptists. Unlike, slavery, Christian slave holders, and Biblical segregation this one didn't die so easily for those that find fault with it. Also, by the way, it is not been Baptist practice to say that "separation of Church and State" is "one way" and designed to merely protect the church from the state. Baptist tended to believe that it works both ways. Some of the non-baptists have a reason not to become Baptists should they believe that this separation is a lie/myth. Their lives may have been easier if Baptists had been less vocal over the centuries.

Anyways the following quote struck me as interesting for several reasons. One, the book was published by Baptists in 1907. This particular chapter was written by Benjamin O. True, Professor of Church History at Rochester Theological Seminary. Two, the quote is older than the book. I do not know how old the source is that he is quoting, but obviously it is older than 1907. Three, this is written before our recent controversies. At this time, there was not a National Day of Prayer, National Prayer Breakfast, Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, Most of the Ten Commandment monuments, prayer at the Sugar Bowl, and the national motto as In God we trust. This is why I like older Baptist theology, it is less politicized. They believed in separation of church and state without being accused by fellow baptists of being against prayer or against the Bible. I am not sure what George Truett, John Leland, or Spurgeon would think about our battles on government faculty prayer and bible reading in public schools, but I am certain that they would not believe that their addition would change the nation towards true piety.

So far as this was a work of intelligent conviction and religious faith the chief honor of it must be given to the Baptists. Other sects, notably the Presbyterians, had been energetic and efficient in demanding their own liberties; the Friends and the Baptists agreed in demanding liberty of conscience and worship and equality before the law for all alike. But the active labor in this cause was mainly done by the Baptists. It is to their consistency and constancy in the warfare against the privileges of the powerful “Standing Order” of New England, and of the moribund establishments of the South, that we are chiefly indebted for the final triumph in this country of that principle of the separation of Church from State which is one of the largest contributions of the New World to civilization and to the church universal.

~ Dr. Leonard Woolsey Bacon, "History of American Christianity" pg 221

National Day of Prayer

National days of prayer have occurred since 1775, when the Continental Congress asked the nation to join in a petition for divine guidance. Since then, 34 of 44 U.S. presidents have called for days of prayer during times of crisis, including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. This has been the tradition of our nation from its founding. [1]

According to Shirley Dobson, 10 of our Presidents never called for days of prayer. I am curious as to who the ten were. The National Day of Prayer was signed into law by our 33rd President Harry Truman, so every president since 1953 has call for a day of prayer at least once a year: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. That’s 11 of our 44 Presidents. (Out of that lot, only 10 ceremonies have been held for the NDP: one by Reagan, one by G H Bush, and eight by G W Bush) We now have 33 Presidents left. It is 10 out of 33 or basically a little less than one third. My point is that while 23 is more than 10, there is a sizable minority that did not call for days of prayer. The scales are not as weighted as they appear.[2]

Things that distract from government prayer resolutions

This made me mad, so I thought I'd share.

"For those of us who have our doubts about Obama's faith, no, we did not expect him to have the service," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "But as president, he should put his own lack of faith aside and live up to the office."

Referencing a remark the president made at a recent press conference in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," she added: "That was projecting his own beliefs, but not reflecting what the majority of Americans feel. It's almost like Obama is trying to remake America into his own image. This is not a rejection of Shirley Dobson; it's a rejection of the concept that America is a spiritual nation and its foundation isJudeo-Christian."[1]

The White House did not directly address Dobsons's comments.

However, a White House source with direct knowledge of the situation, said event organizers placed restrictions on potential speakers saying that they had to be "pro-life" and the only person officially invited from the administration was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican.[2]

Bishop Colenso and the Zulu

When I was reading The Woman's Bible a month or so ago, the story of Bishop Colenso stuck out to me.

Stories like this get you in trouble.  I am not a Victorian missionary to Zululand.  I have never been a missionary to anywhere.  I am not a converted Zulu reading this verse for the first time.  Also, we have to put Colenso into context.  He was already having doubts before this.  So when I say that "I cannot imagine as a 21st century American citizen (blogging on a computer, long after sundown), what it would be like to be a 19th century missionary to Zululand", that should be obvious on the outset.  Still the story took the 19th century by storm and it is not hard to imagine (there I go again) why.  Here is a reference to Colenso's own account.

Rabid dog versus beautiful innocent little children

Below is one of Chuck's ethics metaphor for the Old Testament genocides.   My main quibble is the Israelites are "beautiful innocent children" while the races to be exterminated (including beautiful innocent children) are referred to as a "rabid dog".

It would be as though you were hired by our school to be an attendant on the playground . And you have all of these beautiful kindergartners out there playing on the ground: frolicking, rolling in the grass, playing with their balls - beautiful little children. And you hear this yipping noise, and you look up, and here's a little rabid dog with foam running out the mouth coming towards the children. Now, you know that dog has rabies, you know because that dog has rabies it's going to die: there's no way that dog can live - the rabies are going to kill that dog . You also know that if that dog should bite one of these little children that are under your charge that the child will also get rabies and will either die, or have to go through the extremely painful Pasteur shots. Now, as an attendant out there on the grounds: your responsibility to watch over those beautiful innocent little children, with this mad dog that is going to die anyhow, being a threat to those children, would you be justified in killing that little dog? You better believe it.[1]

Honestly, calling a group of people and their families a "rabid dog" that needs to be put down; sounds like many other excuses to excuse genocide.  One such similar sounding reason was codified into a Disney song: "What can you expect from filthy little heathens?"  Tabula rasa aside, all the children were just "savages" and "rabid" dogs? Whatever you think about the genocide of holy war, the dog metaphor is beyond the pail.

Cotton Mather was pro-vaccine

Cotton Mather never ceases to amaze me.  He is a very complicated man.


God’s Will?

The religious debate was also important. Mather, who had lost his wife and three youngest children in a measles epidemic, argued that inoculation was a gift from God. Those opposed to inoculation argued that epidemic diseases afflicted the people for a divine reason, and that to attempt to prevent them was to oppose God’s will. Others argued that inoculation, with its roots in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, was a heathen practice not suitable for Christians.[1]

Sauropodomorpha and correcting myself

Original Source for the image http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/Cladogram/SaurischiaSauropodmorpha.jpg

I said, I would source a rant about phylogeny later and this is my attempt to do so. Already, I have blogged about Crocodilians and Ceratopsians. In the original rant, I wrote:

May I ask, what is your view point? You point to this chart as evidence that “one thing, stayed one thing and never changed into anything else! What we see in the world today and what we read in the Bible is consistent and true.” As already mentioned “W” is Ceratopsians. Do you hold that transitioning from a biped to a quadruped is not changing? “O” is Prosauropods and “P” is Sauropods. Do you hold that quasi-quadruped prosauropods transitioning into sauropods is changing? If “W” is OK, then why is “O” to “P” not OK?

As I already mentioned there are at least three bipedal families in the generally quadruped ceratopsians. By Kerby [1] and Answers in Genesis [2], this is considered variation within a kind. However in this particular phylogeny, prosauropods and sauropods are separate branches. Kerby seems to suggest that each separate branch are their own separate “one thing” that “stayed one thing”.

Prosauropods, like ceratopsians, are both bipedal and quadrupeds[3]. They are named “prosauropods”, because they were thought to have evolved into sauropods. They seemed to be transitioning into obligatory quadrupeality. They grew bigger and their necks grew longer.[4] 

It is difficult to know what Answers in Genesis thinks about prosauropods. The word, “prosauropod”, does not occur on the Creation Museum website. It appears only once on the Answers in Genesis website. [5] Searching for “sauropod” on Answers in Genesis, yields over 300 hits. One contains the following quote:

Sauropods just appear and disappear in the fossil record, without connection and without explanation. According to The Complete Dinosaur, “The ancestry of the sauropods, before they burst onto the world scene on almost every continent in the Middle Jurassic, is obscure.”

No known process of change could derive them from any other known organism, and no evidence of such change is found in the fossil record. [6]

The rest of the paragraph in The Complete Dinosaur, reads:

Seems obvious
when you read
the chart :)

The frequent assumption that they arose from prosauropods, probably melanorosaurids, has yet to be verified. Furthermore, some characters, including the reduction of the fifth digit of the hind foot in all prosauropods (but not in sauropods), suggest that these animals were already too specialized to have served as sauropod ancestors, and that the sauropods may have arisen as a sister group in the Late Triassic. Indeed, the traditional assumption that the quadrupedal sauropods developed from bipedal prosauropods was questioned as early as 1965 by A.J. Charig, J. Attridge, and A.W. Crompton. [7]

So now we come to the portion of this blog where I need to
correct something in my rant. The current prevailing hypothesis is not that prosauropods evolved into sauropods, but that both prosauropods and sauropods share a common ancestor. I stated the following:

Do you hold that quasi-quadruped prosauropods transitioning into sauropods is changing?

As mentioned in The Complete Dinosaur this has long been known not to be the likely case. However, the question can be redeemed...I hope. Why is it not likely that both prosauropods and sauropods are the same kind or in Kerby’s language, “one thing”?

Grazing through Answers in Genesis, it is difficult to know what they think. Again, they only mention prosauropods by name once. They also seem reluctant to assign a non-sauropod ancestor.[8] [9] [10]

Ceratopsians and Phylogeny

I have been writing a series, critiquing Carl Kerby’s critique of a phylogenic chart. My main point has been that the chart does not say what Kerby says that it says. Kerby argues that the chart shows that “one thing stayed one thing and never changed into anything else.” I’ve brought up that the lines on the chart represent orders and sub-orders of animals. One of the limbs on the tree even represents birds. Within these orders and sub-orders are immense diversity. In the original post, I brought this up.

Just look at "W" which represents the suborder Ceratopsians. They were both bipedal and quadrupeds.

Kerby works with Answers in Genesis and both he and they generally argue that all ceratopsians are one created kind.

Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on.[1]

As I pointed out, ceratopsians do not just include the four legged dinosaurs that remind everyone of Triceratops. It also includes bipeds like Yinlong[2] and Psittacosaurus[3]. There are actually three different families of bipedal ceratopsians[4]. Clearly, Kerby and Answers in Genesis both accept Yinlong and Triceratops as diversity within created kinds.

 If this amount of diversity is accepted, I fail to see why feliformia cannot be considered a single created kind.  Surely the differences between Yinlong and Triceratops are no bigger than the differences between Hyaenidae (hyenas) and Felidae (biting cats and Sabre-tooth cats).[5]

Are Crocodilians one thing?

A couple of months ago, I wrote a blog post about someone misrepresenting phylogenetic charts.

It is difficult to see, but the red line to the far left represents what used to be referred to as "Crocodilians".  The third red line from the top left represents "birds".  Now, I mainly took issue with the following statement.  

According to the chart, everything changed incredibly fast for 30 million years, then many didn’t change for the next 150 million years! Truth be told, it’s actually much worse than that. The fossil record actually contains things that are dated back to 400 million years and they are exactly the same as what we see today! Call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that an animal can stay exactly the same for long long of a time period...

...What these charts actually show is that one thing, stayed one thing and never changed into anything else! What we see in the world today and what we read in the Bible is consistent and true.

The fossil record confirms that one thing, stayed one thing, and never changed from, or into, anything else. Consider these quotes from non-creationists that support our conclusion.

In my original post, I pointed out that this is not what the chart says at all.  These red lines represent large amounts of diversity.

If you were to zoom in on that infraorder you would find that evolutionists think they changed for the next 150 million years producing new genera and species. For example, lions are a species. Their genus includes tigers, leopards, and jaguars. Their family includes other cats like pumas and house cats. Their sub-order, Feliformia, includes also hyenas, mongooses, meerkats, etc... Their order, Carnivora, includes bears, seals, dogs, etc... It is misleading to say that the order of Crocodilians did not change when an order or infraorder contains a lot of diversity. Just look at "W" which represents the suborder Ceratopsians. They were both bipedal and quadrupeds.

Well, I found a blog post by palaeozoologist Darren Naish explaining the taxonomy of what used to be called "Crocodilians".

Firstly – a minor point on nomenclature. This sort of thing has to be discussed whenever crocodilians are. The group of archosaurs conventionally called crocodilians, and frequently termed Crocodilia in the textbooks (that is, living crocodiles, alligators, gharials and all their crocodile-like, alligator-like and gharial-like fossil relatives) is now most typically termed Crocodyliformes. That is, ‘crocodilians’ of tradition are now crocodyliforms (note that the last ‘e’ gets dropped when you convert a ‘-formes’ name to its vernacular version). Within Crocodyliformes, the crown-group (that is, the group that contains the living species and all descendants of their most recent common ancestor) is termed Crocodylia. So, Crocodylia is a clade within Crocodyliformes (Clark in Benton & Clark 1988, Norell et al. 1994, Salisbury & Willis 1996, Brochu 2003).

Crocodyliformes is part of a more inclusive group that also includes the crocodyliform-like sphenosuchians, and this larger clade is termed Crocodylomorpha. In turn, Crocodylomorpha is part of a major archosaur group informally termed the crocodile-branch or crocodile-group archosaurs, the best technical name for which is (unfortunately) Pseudosuchia (how I hate the fact that this name might win out over Crurotarsi, if certain phylogenetic definitions are followed).

Massively simplified cladogram of crocodilians and their relatives, with numerous lineages not shown. The affinities between "rauisuchians", aetosaurs and crocodylomorphs are shown here as being unresolved, but some studies find aetosaurs to be closer to crocodylomorphs than are other croc-group archosaurs. Other studies find at least some "rauisuchians" to be closer to crocodylomorphs than are other croc-group archosaurs. Within Crocodylomorpha, some studies find thalattosuchians to be further away from Crocodylia than is Notosuchia.

In view of the confusion that ensues whenever an attempt is made to explain the use and meaning of these names (I’ve had to do it several times), I believe that we should stick with what we have: the archosaurs that we imagine as ‘crocodilians’ are now crocodyliforms, and the crocodyliform crown-clade is Crocodylia. However, some workers aren’t happy with this and have argued that we should use Crocodylia in place of Crocodyliformes (Martin & Benton 2008). I can’t see that this does anything useful bar complicate an already confusing situation and I think that we should ignore this proposal. When talking to technical audiences, I tend to use crocodyliform, but I don’t see anything wrong with ‘crocodilian’ being used as a vernacular term for the clades Crocodyliformes or Crocodylomorpha. [1]

In my last post, I made a comment about therizinosaurs.

They belong to “m” on your chart, the clades “Carnosaurs and Coelurosaurs”. Therizionosaurs, are in the clade, Coelurosaurs, and all posses sloth like giant claws. How can “m” which represents two parallel clades teach that “one thing stayed one thing”? Also, how is anything becoming a Therizinosaur not becoming a new thing?

I would like to echo that comment here.  The red line marked "Crocodilians" includes thalattosuchians.  How can anyone consider a group that includes these aquatic reptiles and alligators as "one thing stayed one thing"?   Clearly this chart does not teach that "everything changed incredibly fast for 30 million years, then many didn't change for the next 150 million years".  Thalattosuchians are thought to have evolved in the early Jurrasic.  

Whatever you believe about the Theory of Evolution, it is unwise to misrepresent information.  

Friday Quotes XXXVIII

I am no bigot, I can hear a prayer from a man of piety and virtue, who, at the same time, is a friend to his country. ~ Samuel Adams.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. ~ Mitt Romney

Heck with that. We have law. You come to this country; you break our law; you suffer the penalty of our law, not your law. You want to break your law? Go home and do it. But in our country, break our law, and the law will break you. ~ Mike Huckabee

Friday Quotes XXXVII (Mostly Mormon Quotes)

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls. ~ Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Journal of History 9

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine... ~ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887),

[H]eaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation. . . .~ John Smith about Jamestown

[F]ree government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1820

A government held together by the bands of reason only, requires much compromise of opinion. ~ Thomas Jefferson

A government held together by the bands of reason only, requires much compromise of opinion. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Truth between candid minds can never do harm. ~ John Adams

Friday Quotes XXXVI

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid! Listen carefully, for I proclaim to you good news that brings great joy to all the people: Today your Savior is born in the city of David. He is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” Suddenly a vast, heavenly army appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!”

Luke 2:10-14

An interesting note only the KJV and NKJV preserve this reading:

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2:14

From the NET

tc Most witnesses (א2 B2 L Θ Ξ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï sy bo) have ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (en anqrwpoi" eudokia, “good will among people”) instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (en anqrwpoi" eudokia", “among people with whom he is pleased”), a reading attested by א* A B* D W pc (sa). Most of the Itala witnesses and some other versional witnesses reflect a Greek text which has the genitive εὐδοκίας but drops the preposition ἐν. Not only is the genitive reading better attested, but it is more difficult than the nominative. “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111).

Friday Quotes XXXV

Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having Original Sin alone, they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they merit Hell or Purgatory. ~ Pope Pius X 1904

So let's get our bearings straight as we think and talk about The Golden Compass. This movie does represent a great challenge, but a challenge that Christians should always be ready to meet. ~ Al Mohler

The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book. ~ Letter from the Smithsonian Institution (SIL-76, Summer 1979).

This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God.... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked...impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions. ~ Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Liverpool, 1851), 1-2.

O ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity. ~ Surah 33:53 (Officially the funniest verse in the Quran)

The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised. American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. ~ Mike Huckabee

Every pharisaical religionist claims to love his enemies, even though when wronged he consoles himself by thinking "God will punish them". Instead of admitting to themselves that they are capable of hating their foes and treating them in the manner they deserve, they say: "There, but for the grace of God, go I," and "pray" for them. Why should we humiliate and lower ourselves by drawing such inaccurate comparisons? ~ Excerpt from the Satanic Bible

Friday Quotes XXXIV

It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets, Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." ~ Charles Anthon 1834

[F]or I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did... ~ Joseph Smith - King Follett Discourse

Friday Quotes XXXIII

The day is short and the work is great, but the workers are lazy; however the wages are high since the owner is in a hurry. ~ Rabbi Tarfon (born c. 50-55 A.D.), (Avot 2:15)

He who has more deeds than knowledge, his knowledge endures, but he who has more knowledge than deeds, his knowledge does not endure. ~ Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa (mid-first century A.D.) (Avot 3:10);

A person whose knowledge is greater than his deeds, what is he like? A tree whose branches are many but whose roots are few; the wind comes and uproots and overturns it. However, a person whose deeds are greater than his knowledge, what is he like? A tree whose branches are few but whose roots are many; even if all the winds were to come and blow against it, they could not move it. ~ Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (end of first century A.D.) (Avot 3:18).

Do his will as if it were your will that he may do your will as if it were his will. Conform your will to his will that he may conform the will of others to your will. (Avot 2:4)

Be as strong as the leopard, swift as the eagle, fleet as the gazelle and brave as the lion to do the will of your father in heaven. ~ Yehudah ben Tema (Avot 5:20)

Do not be like slaves that serve their master in order to receive a reward; rather, be like slaves that do not serve their master in order to receive a reward. (Avot 1:3)

Any love that depends on some passing thing, when the thing disappears, the love vanishes, too; but a love that does not depend on some passing thing will last forever.Which love was it that depended on some passing thing? — the love of Amnon and Tamar [2 Sam. 13:1]. And which love was it that did not depend on some passing thing? — the love of David and Jonathan [2 Sam. 1:26]. (Avot 5:16)

Zombie edit

Friday Quotes XXXII

There's no vocabulary For love within a family, love that's lived in But not looked at, love within the light of which All else is seen, the love within which All other love finds speech. This love is silent. ~ T. S. Eliot Heard this on NPR this weekend. It's so true.

You shall forget these things, toiling in the household, You shall remember them, droning by the fire, when age and forgetfulness sweeten memory...Saints are not made by accident. Still less is a Christian martyrdom the effect of a man's will to become a Saint, as a man by willing and contriving may become a ruler of men. Ambition fortifies the will of man to become ruler over other men: it operates with deception, cajolery, and violence, it is the action of impurity upon impurity. Not so in Heaven. A martyr, a saint, is always made by the design of God, for His love of men, to warn them and to lead them, to bring them back to His ways. A martyrdom is never the design of man; for the true martyr is he who has become the instrument of God, who has lost his will in the will of God, not lost it but found it, for he has found freedom in submission to God. The martyr no longer desires anything for himself, not even the glory of martyrdom. So thus as on earth the Church mourns and rejoices at once, in a fashion that the world cannot understand; so in Heaven the Saints are most high, having made themselves most low, seeing themselves not as we see them, but in the light of the Godhead from which they draw their being. ~ TS Eliot - Murder in the Cathedral Found this gem, while looking for the other Eliot quote. God is most satisfied in us, when we are most satisfied in Him. Christian Hedonism.

mulier taceat in ecclesia (let your women keep silent in church) ~ I Corinthians, ch 14, v 34 This was used to keep women from singing in the Catholic choirs for millenia. The soprano and alto parts had to be sung by boys or castratos.

The reason I didn’t support their tax hike was that I made it very clear that I would support the revenue if it matched the level of reform; they failed to enact the level of efficiency reform that we all knew was necessary. ~ Mike Huckabee Huckabee had 90 taxcuts, but he netted a tax increase.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~ Ben Franklin Stole this from one of the only reasonable Ron Paul supporters I know.

Into this wild abyss,
The womb of nature and perhaps her grave,
Of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire,
But all these in their pregnant causes mixed
Confusedly, and which thus must ever fight,
Unless the almighty maker them ordain
His dark materials to create more worlds,
Into this wild abyss the wary fiend
Stood on the brink of hell and looked a while,
Pondering his voyage... ~ John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book II This is the basis of Philip Pullman's Dark Material Trilogy. God created several natures and the books are about their interconnectiveness. Also, they kill God.

McDowell on why not to believe the Bible

From my notes on a Josh McDowell conference:

Josh McDowell believes ironically few have intelligent reasons why they believe anything.
Christians tend to have the same kind of faith as Islam. We don’t know why the Bible is true. 95% answers no different than a Muslim, when asked why they believe.

Here are the top eight reasons Christians say they know Christianity is true.
1. What I have been taught…
2. How my parents raised me…
3. What my church teaches…
4. What I learned in Seminary…
5. I feel that it is true…
6. It’s what I believe…

If anything you believe is true, there would never be heresy

Former generation - I believe it, because it is true
Current generation - Youth – its true, because I believe it.
54% of teenagers leave Christianity because no one will answer my questions

7. I have Faith…

Faith doesn’t make anything true
Truth creates faith 1 Cor 15
If it isn’t true faith is worthless

8. It changed my life…

Muslim – Koran changed their life – Sunni
Lies changes lives
Amway changes lives
They all have to do with being dogmatic, but dogmatic doesn’t mean its true, it just mean its dogmatic.
Josh McDowell says - Don’t ever think that this doesn’t matter or you will loose your children
Raise your children the way you were raised, kiss them good bye
Why? = Every belief system flies in the face of their belief system
You can not take your children farther than what you have gone yourself.
There are hundreds of answers why you are a Christian, but no one can answer one.
50% of kids come to Christ by their 4th birthday
Used to be 50% by their 11th birthday

Oh yeah, you want fulfilled prophecy...

And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel.
1 Nephi 19:10

“They will not harm you except for [some] annoyance. And if they fight you, they will show you their backs (i.e., flee); then they will not be aided.” (Surah 3:111)
“And if those (Meccans) who disbelieve were to fight you, they would certainly turn their backs (i.e., flee). Then they would not find a protector or a helper.” (Surah 48:22)

P.S. - Preach the gospel. And if necessary, use words. ~ St. Francis of Assisi
I was reading a Mormon, who said that part of his reason for converting to mormonism is that he wanted to be like the mormons he saw. Their lifestyle was their evangelism. I have been wondering if how someone of a particular belief lives is sufficient reason for conversion to a particular point of view. In the inspiration/inerrancy controversy, both sides claim that the other side had elements of moral repugnancy. Truth, though seems to rise above the character of a person.

Friday Quotes XXXI

I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and , as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right; and he can be brought to that only when he ceases to be a man. ~ Frederick Douglas - Narrative - X

It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen. There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules. They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date. They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings. How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe? ~ Mr. Matherick - a foster parent who is having his foster child taken away for failing to abide by Britian's Equality Act 2006.

The truth you dig out yourself is so much more precious than anything else. ~ Josh McDowell

sic semper tyrannis (Thus ever [it be] with tyrants) ~ Virginia State Motto

Her name was Jen Neh Civil

It seems like these fake facebook trolls pop up fairly often.  I redacted all the names for obvious reasons, but I thought that someone should publish that Jen Neh Civil was a fake account.  Also anyone can google her profile picture and come to the same conclusion.

PS - I am not an atheist.