Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chris Comer was shilling for CFI-Austin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cool. This should be interesting when it gets to court. As I was reading the complaint it mentions Barbara Forrest’s talk was sponsored by the Austin Center for Inquiry. So basically Comer was using taxpayer funded resources owned by the Texas government to help the Austin Center for Inquiry advertise the event it was sponsoring. This raises the question of who exactly is the Austin Center for Inquiry and why should they be entitled to free advertising from the state of Texas?

CFI Austin

The Center for Inquiry Austin was created for people who call themselves Brights, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Skeptics, Agnostics, Freethinkers – you get the idea!
It is a chance not only to meet other local people whose worldview is similar to your own – but also make a difference in your community. Along with many social activities for those looking for fun, we offer educational programs, a Secular Family network for families with kids, a Discussion Group, Book Groups, Community Volunteer Programs – all are free and new folks are always welcome!

You can check out our “real” web site at:
centerforinquiry – dot – net/austin

Come be a part of our friendly, diverse group.

Meetup Topics
Brights, Science, Evolution, Secular Humanism

So it’s basically a front organization for Dick to the Dawk’s “Brites”. Too bad Gloppy isn’t here for comment on that one.

Wikipedia has some history on CFI too (my emphasis):

The Center for Inquiry was established in 1991 by philosopher and author Paul Kurtz. It brought together two organizations: the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal[1] (CSICOP) and the Council for Secular Humanism[2] (CSH), both of which had previously operated in tandem but were now formally affiliated under one umbrella.

If you don’t know what Secular Humanism is here it is:

Secular Humanism – Excluding God from Schools & Society
Secular Humanism is an attempt to function as a civilized society with the exclusion of God and His moral principles. During the last several decades, Humanists have been very successful in propagating their beliefs. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system. Humanist Charles F. Potter writes, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?” (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)

John J. Dunphy, in his award winning essay, The Humanist (1983), illustrates this strategic focus, “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity — utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

Is this what’s happening? John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. It seems the Humanists have been interested in America’s education system for nearly a century. They have been absolutely successful in teaching children that God is imaginary and contrary to “science.”

Comments
DaveScot said (#12) --
And if you snuck aboard a jumbo jet on a flight from New York to Paris that’s going there whether you’re aboard or not it consumes virtually no extra airline funded resources.
I don't think that your analogy is a good one, Dave, but I am not going to quibble about it. But what if the CFI sponsored a public debate about teaching or mentioning criticisms of evolution in the public schools? IMO that would be neutral and it would be OK for the TEA to announce the event even though such announcement would directly or indirectly use tax money to help the CFI. IMO the problem is that the Darwinists expect the TEA to prematurely take a position on an issue that is a topic of upcoming public hearings. If the TEA is to take a position at all, that position should be taken after the public hearings, not before.Larry Fafarman
July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
For the Church Burnin' Ebola Boys: http://web.archive.org/web/20060508073403/www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/id-defined/ I moved it to "Friends" when the "Pages" category went the way of the dodo but you don't have to take my word for it as archive.org has monthly snapshots of it being there.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Bah and D'oh... just found it. I swear I couldn't find it earlier (under Friends of Descent header.) Nevermind. -DU-utidjian
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Dave, I tried several likely looking links but I can't find the definition of Intelligent Design in the Uncommondescent.com sidebar. Perhaps it was there and got deleted? -DU-utidjian
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Jack The day someone in your camp uses the definition of Intelligent Design in our sidebar here is the day I'll worry about your hypocritical self recommending I take a definition of secular humanism from secular humanists. The secular humanist description was accurate. Maybe it's time for you to do a little reflecting on the agenda of your bedfellows. You don't seem such a bad sort but many of your cohorts are.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Larry "Forwarding the email used virtually no extra taxpayer-funded resources." Yeah, right. And if you snuck aboard a jumbo jet on a flight from New York to Paris that's going there whether you're aboard or not it consumes virtually no extra airline funded resources. No harm, no foul, right? Wrong. How much "extra" isn't the point. The point is she had no right to do it, period.DaveScot
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
-----Jack: "It would seem more fair to link to a site where secular humanists are described by themselves, or at least make it clear that the quote is from detractors, not supporters." Oh I don’t know. I think we need Barbara Forrest to go in and show how the Human Manifesto III is nothing more than Human Manifesto I in a cheap tuxedo.StephenB
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Jack, I think the CIF Austin link provides readers with everything they need to know about who is sponsoring the lecture as well as their overall focus. Since you are a supporter and personal friend of Barbara's, how do you justify her innacurate and hypocritical stance that ID = religious creationism while at the same time she is an atheist & secular humanist supporting Darwinism? You must understand how hypocritical her position is. Why should anyone take her seriously considering her own philosphical leanings and her involvement with secular humanism? Isn't that why we're told we shouldn't listen to Dembski et. al. - because of their religious and philosophical beliefs?FtK
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
I'd like to point out that the source of the quote about secular humanism comes from an evangelical Christian website (allaboutgod.com), and that's not at all obvious from Dave's post. It would seem more fair to link to a site where secular humanists are described by themselves, or at least make it clear that the quote is from detractors, not supporters.Jack Krebs
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
What’s amazing is that, with all the money, all the time, all the exclusive teaching, humanists have only been able to convince around 14% of the American people. Thank God for the First Amendment. They have been much more successful in Europe.tribune7
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
This is old news. Virtually every tenet of the humanist manifesto is being taught in public schools. In other words, you are paying to have another religion indoctrinated to your kid. What's amazing is that, with all the money, all the time, all the exclusive teaching, humanists have only been able to convince around 14% of the American people. Like Dave said previously, what would have happened if the humanist creation myth (unguided evolutionism) had been subject to scientific criticism?Mats
July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
----Dave wrote: "Is this what’s happening? John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. It seems the Humanists have been interested in America’s education system for nearly a century. They have been absolutely successful in teaching children that God is imaginary and contrary to “science.” Exactly right. Theists want diversity ordered in unity so that tyranny will not be necessary. Secular humanists want diversity disordered without unity so that tyranny will be necessary. Theists want to teach America’s history and its deep Christian roots so that we will remember that our rights come from God. Secular humanists want to rewrite American history so that we will think that our rights come from government. Theists are portrayed as ravenous wolves and intractable ideologues, even though they want nothing more than the right to free expression. Secular humanists are portrayed as disinterested, open-minded people helpers, even though they want to regulate thought and inhibit speech. Theists define freedom as the right to follow the dictates of their consciences. Secular humanists define freedom as the right to follow the cravings of their appetites. Theists want to base the civil law on the natural moral law. Secular humanists want to base the civil law on the arbitrary whims of an elitist establishment.StephenB
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Off topic, folks, please forgive me. But has UD commented yet on the outrage over Paul Davies’ Taking Science on Faith?Rude
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
I guess the above link isn't working, try this one: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/how_to_rebut_barbara_forrest_e.html#trackbackF2XL
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
No Joke! Luskin summed it up pretty well when it comes to the sheer lack of personal accountability with the following: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5551 She accuses US of quote mining, yet this is precisely what she does to "expose" the supposed agenda behind the ID movement. She insists that we're all religiously and philosophically motivated, yet her place at NOSHA seems to speak for itself. The most epic one of them all: http://www.evolutionnews.org/BarbaraForrest_DiscoveryInstituteisWatchingYourEveryMove.mp3 And she seemed so compelled to ask who Casey was staying with in Baton Rouge. Maybe Barbara has some intense feelings she doesn't feel like disclosing......F2XL
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
DaveScot said,
As I was reading the complaint it mentions Barbara Forrest’s talk was sponsored by the Austin Center for Inquiry.
I don't care who sponsored the event -- to me, the problem was the one-sidedness of the presentation. To me it would have been OK for Comer to forward an announcement of a public debate about the issues, because that would still be neutral. Comer was not told to not communicate at all with anyone outside the agency -- she was told "not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency in any way that might compromise the transparency and/or integrity of the upcoming TEKS development and revision process" (page 24, Exhibit B of the complaint). Because this directive was vague and did not specifically mention neutrality, IMO Comer should have gotten just a warning. Dumping her made her into a Darwinist martyr. BTW, other reasons for dumping her were presented in Exhibit B of the complaint.
So basically Comer was using taxpayer funded resources owned by the Texas government to help the Austin Center for Inquiry advertise the event it was sponsoring.
Forwarding the email used virtually no extra taxpayer-funded resources. She used just a few minutes of her time and her regular TEA email service. FtK said,
You really have to wonder if Barbara is aware of the blatant hypocrisy that stems from her lectures.
Yes -- and yet the Darwinists regard her testimony as an important factor in their total victory in Kitzmiller v. Dover.Larry Fafarman
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Sigh... You really have to wonder if Barbara is aware of the blatant hypocrisy that stems from her lectures. She lectures about the supposed ID conspiracy - unfairly equating it with creationism and asserting that ID supporters are conspiring to sneak religion into the science classrooms. Yet, her lecture is sponored by CIF Austin, an Atheist derived secular humanist group? I'll tell ya, sometimes this debate just wears a person out. You just feel like slamming some heads together and saying "Look, let's put a stop to this insanity. Both sides comes to the table with their underlying ideologies. We're going to have to do something to allow equal time for both sides of the discussion". Alas, I've give up all hope of that ever happening...FtK
July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply