- The Washington Times - Thursday, March 22, 2007

Bismarck’s vision

“In the final analysis, the present situation is exactly what liberal-progressive politicians desire: a voting public as fully dependent as possible on federal largesse.

“The welfare state has done its job, exactly as Chancellor Otto von Bismarck envisioned it in the 1880s when he established the world’s first welfare system. He wanted a public so dependent upon the Kaiser’s government that it could be herded like cattle by state bureaucrats.

“Far better for the United States, and perhaps the only means of its survival in a largely hostile world, would be a return to God, to teaching the moral principles of Judeo-Christianity that would keep the people focused upon saving first and spending only what they can really afford.”

— Thomas E. Brewton, writing on “First Corrupt Them, Then Control Them,” Saturday in Reality Check at www.therealitycheck.org

Sir Elton’s science

“Sir Elton John would like to ‘ban religion completely’ because it stirs up ‘hatred toward gay people.’ Like so many giants of the entertainment industry, Elton John probably does not hate religion per se, but only Christianity. Christophobia is the religion of Hollywood. …

“The hatred of Christ takes many forms, and, since at least the 16th century, one of the most influential has been science, or more properly (since many great scientists have been believers) scientism, the ideology that claims to be able to explain all things human and superhuman by its formulas and equations. …

“[British biologist] Richard Dawkins and [University of Texas physicist] Steven Weinberg have taken up the Elton John argument — that religious people are nasty beyond belief — and, in addition, they are naive enough to believe that they can (more or less) disprove the existence of God or at least prove the absurdity of theological arguments in favor of such a Being.”

— Thomas Fleming, writing on “Dead Monkeys and the Living God,” in the April issue of Chronicles

Genetic regrets

“For some time now, gays have attributed their sexual behavior to genetics. They attempt to bolster their point by strangely lamenting, ‘Why would anyone choose this life?’ Said Rosie O’Donnell, for instance: ‘I don’t think you choose whether or not you are gay. Who would choose it? It’s a very difficult life. … But if I could pick, would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay in America or being heterosexual? I would say heterosexual.’

“Really? …

“The Associated Press reported March 14 on the rising ‘furor’ over an article by the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for ‘suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.’ …

“Mohler has upset both liberals and conservatives. Liberals are angry he would suggest correcting a homosexual predisposition, which infers it is a disorder. Conservatives are angry Mohler would suggest there is a homosexual predisposition to begin with. …

“I don’t believe the day will come when a gay gene is discovered. But what if?

“On that day, homosexuals would regret ever promoting this idea. Because on that day the embryonic stem-cell research they now support as liberal activists would be upon discarded swishy blastocysts. And on that day the unfettered access to abortion they now defend alongside abortion activists would result in the annihilation of lots of little lesbians.”

— Jill Stanek, writing on “Abort gay babies?” Wednesday in WorldNetDaily at www.worldnetdaily.com

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide