See update at the end of this post.
In the comment section to the last post Bill Dembski alluded to an NSF staffer who attempted to justify surfing porn at work. The staffer’s justification: he was only trying to help provide a living to poor overseas women. Denyse O’Leary suggested that if this loser had really wanted to help poor women overseas he could have made a donation to any of the various religious orders that actually help poor women overseas instead of participating in ensnaring them in sexual slavery. Dembski responded by posing tongue-in-cheek the following question:
Denyse, You raise an interesting question for Richard Dawkins: If we had to choose one or the other, helping “poor overseas women” by (1) frequenting at taxpayer’s expense porn sites that pay these women a cut, the porn sites presumably constituting a purely secular activity or by (2) donating money to Catholic/Protestant charities that care for these women by providing shelter, food, and medical care, these charities constituting a religious activity, which should we prefer? I suspect RD, given his virulent hatred of religion, would opt for (1).
At least Dembski thought the question was tongue-in-cheek. Who could have expected the reply from someone who calls himself Seversky? First Seversky defended pornography on the ground that it has been around a long time. Seversky, rape, murder, and theft have been around for a long time too; does that make you in favor of those activities as well?
Then Seversky takes a swipe at Christians who have caused scandals by falling to sexual sin. I suppose Seversky is pushing the risible notion that these handful of failures are somehow representative of the hundreds of millions of Christians who strive daily to live lives marked by adherence to the Golden Rule.
But Seversky’s defense of porn and his attempt to smear millions both pale in comparison to this gob-smacking passage: “I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.”
There you have it. Our opponents count among their number a man who would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her. After I picked myself up from the floor, my first inclination was to delete the comment and ban this moral monster from the site. Then, I thought better of it. Instead, of deleting the comment, I will put it out there for everyone in the world to see. And I say this to our opponents who appear at this site: How do you answer Dembski’s question? Do you agree with Seversky? If not, will you remain silent or will you come on here and distance yourself from the views he expressed?
Update: As I write this 27 comments have been made. As I expected, the materialists have stood by their man Seversky, mainly by advancing patently absurd interpretations of his comments. And they’ve even attacked me, also as expected. Pathetic. Again, I was tempted to delete their comments, but I will not. Instead, I will leave their moral squalor on display for all to see.
41 comments now and still not one materialist has condemned Seversky’s views. Astounding.