[Phys-L] Re: [SPAM-6.111] Re: [SPAM-4.611] Re: THE WEDGE STRATEGY of The ID Movement

[rlamont at POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU (rlamont)]

I promised myself to stay out of this. But some of these
responses show that neither side is making any effort to
understand the other.

I am anti-abortion, but it has nothing to do with "loving
babies". I am against it because once the state starts devaluing
a certain stage of life - 'fetus' or 'baby' - then the door is
open to devalue other stages - 'old farts' like me. I don't
believe in 'souls' or other forms of religious voodoo and
wizardry, but I do care about the government sticking a big
needle in my arm because they feel it would be better for society
or because they somehow think that I can't possibly be enjoying
my quality of life at my age.

These arguments about health care and corporate welfare are just
nonsensical fog thrown out as a shield against thinking about the
core issues.

The topic is ID - which is a real and present danger. We can't
let science be hijacked by cultists.

Bob at PC



> You don't follow politics too closely do you. Pro lifers
overwhelmingly
> vote
> repugnant who in case you haven't paid attention are  mostly
> concerned with
> promoting military spending and
> passing tax cuts for the upper-uppers as well as implementing
the
> social
> agenda of the fundamentalists and Catholics. This includes
mandating
> ID in
> science class by law. But in any case you missed  my point. Let
me try
> again. If
> they love the "Babies" so  WHY ISN'T THERE A CRUSADE TO
> INSURE ALL CHILDREN
> HAVE HEALTH CARE. I know the answer, do you?
>
>
> Bob Zannelli