Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Open Society and Its Secular Enemies

arroba Email

The audacity of the secular humanists never ceases to amaze. Their upcoming conference titled “The Secular Society and Its Enemies” is an ill-conceived rip-off of Karl Popper’s THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES. Had they read and understood Popper, they would realize that they are the enemies to which he was referring. I encourage readers of this blog in the New York area to attend this conference — doing so will immeasurably enrich your education and show you what we’re up against:

The Secular Society and Its Enemies

"Quote: “Wouldn’t “Secular Muslim” be a contradiction?” I don’t really see why. After all, “secular” doesn’t mean not religious, or even anti-religious, just the position that public-sphere politics shouldn’t be influenced by one’s religious views." Actually it is a contradiction in the world of Islam because the state and the mosque are intimately tied together. The Middles Ages Catholic Church has nothing on Islam for a lack of separation between church and state. Jason Rennie
Thanks LittleJon, I was under the impression that "secular" meant "not specifically religious" Wiktionary has "religious" as an antonym for "secular". But anyway I understand what you posted and it makes sense. Joseph
"defenders of science and secularism" ? That statement alone should wake up the masses to the true nature of the intentions and motives of these blind wannabe leaders of the seeing. science and secularism : the association of secularism, a religion, with science (which is not to be associated with religion in spite of it's many religious implications) - is something these inane drone a*# h&^%* are always condemning! So they are now freely publicizing their own glaring hypocrisy! Good move - it can only help people wake up to the truth about the moral ruin secularism, falsely branded as science and truth, has wrought on societies world-wide. As for Hitchens' Lenin’s greatest achievement. - it didn't turn out such an achievement after all did it - since 1) it required the suppression, torture and murder of millions. Not a problem for Hitchens apparently. Not surprising since that is the way all consistent-with-their-views atheists reason anyway - we're just animals so why is it wrong to kill humans who disagree with you? 2) the USSR collapsed under it's own weight of secularism and has since been far more open to religion - thus bringing about what some would call a religious revival in many of those countries - now free from the blood stained boots of brutal bastards who believed religion to be the opium of the people - but communism to be paradise on earth. Some paradise! The secularists in the free world have yet to come out from under their dark cloud of blind, moral and intellectual disease; as we see with this conference. Borne
What these guys say is of little importance compared to the opinion of newspaper editors. Editors are responsible for millions of people reading a mostly one-sided picture of evolution. Unfortunately most press people are liberal. We need more editors if we are going to be successful in revealing the scientific truth about creation. Editors, in fact, have significant influence on judges and politicians. When something is printed in the press both judges and politicians are lead to believe the press reports reflect society's views. It is an absolute power that has been very corrupted. Science debate is a good start, but it will not win the battle. If I was an editor of a large paper I could convince millions of people ridiculous ideas like people are responsible for global warming, or any idea of my choosing. The work that scientist are doing is very important, but we have to also reach out more to friendly news people, perhaps at Fox, Limbaugh, etc. Peter
Quote: "Wouldn’t “Secular Muslim” be a contradiction?" I don't really see why. After all, "secular" doesn't mean not religious, or even anti-religious, just the position that public-sphere politics shouldn't be influenced by one's religious views. littlejon
Someone should set up an erotic petting zoo for Peter Singer.
Actually the title of Singer's essay which sanctions the sort of horseplay which Darwinist-Singerist Kenneth Pinyan engaged in, was entitled "Heavy Petting". scordova
Someone should set up an erotic petting zoo for Peter Singer.
Maybe you haven't heard. He works at a university. Don't give Princeton any ideas. russ
I wonder if these speakers realize that the greatest scientific minds this planet have ever known were religious. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein I would also say that religion isn't dividing the world, people are. And most likely the people causing the division are anti-religion. Wouldn't "Secular Muslim" be a contradiction? It should be "Secular Arabs", perhaps. The saddest part about these guys is that they really think they are the "reality-based community", when in all actuality they all live in a fantasy world. Joseph
The special is suppose to be on TV August 25 or 26 depending on your area bornagain77
Someone should set up an erotic petting zoo for Peter Singer. ninjapirate
In interest of educating the public to the danger's of unchecked Darwinism, I think this upcoming TV special is interesting. THE TRUTH ABOUT DARWINISM This groundbreaking documentary from Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries, looks into the chilling social impact of Darwin's theory of evolution -- and the mounting evidence that Darwin had it wrong on the origin of life. This 60 minute special featuring Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men will show why evolution is a bad idea that should be discarded into the dustbin of history. You can go to this site for information about what time it will be on TV in your area, you can also order the DVD if you want. http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ bornagain77
Well Ben Stein will have plenty of material for a sequel. shaner74
"The world is waking up to the dangers of religious faith"
Which religious faith? Islam? Christianity? Darwinism? Atheism? Such vague statements re mostly self-serving, and don't add anything to the debate.
"Science education suffers from the onslaught of creationist activists."
No science is threatned by "Creationist activists". The only thing that is in danger due to the Darwin-skeptics is unguided evolution. Science is not under attack. Darwinism is. The good old Eugenie "You can believe in unguided evolution and in God" Scott will be there, it seems. Sounds like a riot! Mats
"Then there is the amazingly self-righteous Christopher Hitchens, a socialist, who applauded Lenin’s efforts to dechristianize Russia, callinig it Lenin’s “greatest achievement.”" People should probably make more noise about this sort of thing, given the communists approach was essentially to kill or imprison anybody who disagreed with them. Maybe a picket of the conference ? Something to attract attention to the actual opinions of these degenerates. Jason Rennie
I did an interview with Peter Singer. http://thesciphishow.com/?p=123 Scary guy, made more so IMO by the way he is so friendly and easy going. Jason Rennie
Then there is the amazingly self-righteous Christopher Hitchens, a socialist, who applauded Lenin's efforts to dechristianize Russia, callinig it Lenin's "greatest achievement." Jehu
okay, So why is this religion allowed in our public schools still? I'm glad they're coming out in the open more like this and expose themselves, not as neutral, but just as narrow minded in their opinions as the ppl they criticize. We need to stop this folks from (further) infiltrating our schools. jpark320
Peter Singer will be there. The guy who advocated human-animal sexual unions and medical experiments on live human beings. This is Singer's notion of equal rights:
The experimenter, then, shows a bias in favor of his own species whenever he carries out an experiment on a nonhuman Peter Singer
Singer is complaining that experimenters are being discriminatory in their cruelty to animals, that they should spread the cruelty by experimenting on humans instead. Here Singer complains that philosophy is deficient which does not recognize animals as equal with humans:
It is significant that the problem of equality, in moral and political philosophy, is invariably formulated in terms of human equality. The effect of this is that the question of the equality of other animals does not confront the philosopher, or student, as an issue itself—and this is already an indication of the failure of philosophy to challenge accepted beliefs. Peter Singer
And then this leads to his advocacy of using humans like guinea pigs for medical research:
if equal consideration depended on rationality, no reason could be given against using [human] imbeciles for research purposes, as we now use dogs and guinea pigs. Peter Singer
Singer also thinks men having an intimate relationship with cows and horses should not be offensive in the least. Yet another product of Darwinian thinking. But this is an unsound practice that has dangerous physical consequences. Here is the result of such Darwinian-Singerist thinking: Kenneth Pinyan, victim of Darwinian-Singerism.
sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. Peter Singer
Singer should be an interesting speaker at this conference. The epitome of Darwinism and Secularism when taken to their logical conclusions. scordova

Leave a Reply