Monday, September 15, 2008

Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin

Cranmer is sick and tired of this utter nonsense. It makes the Church of England look and sound even more ridiculous that it already does - if that were possible. In the creation of a cohesive society and for the pursuit of the common good, it is conceivable that one might entertain an apology to the descendants of slaves for the role the Church played in that trade, and even to attempt some sort of bridge-building exercise with Muslims by apologising for the Crusades. But who exactly is the target audience for an apology addressed to Charles Darwin? Who is grieving for reconciliation?

Some scientists dismiss the gesture as ‘ludicrous’; Mr Darwin’s descendants describe it as ‘pointless’, and Ann Widdecombe wonders why the Italians aren’t apologising for Pontius Pilate.

The apology is written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown. It raises so many issues of credibility that Cranmer is at a loss to know where to begin.

Apparently, the apology is ‘for misunderstanding his theory of evolution’. Apart from the fact that the Church has historically ‘misunderstood’ far more important things, the Church of England did not actually ‘misunderstand’ Darwin’s theory at all, not least because (as always) it was divided on the issue. The bishops understood completely the significance of the nexus of the theory (and theory it remains) - that man is the progeny of apes. It really is so simple that even a bishop in the Church of England can comprehend it. Looking at the similarity between Mr Darwin and Dr Williams, it may indeed be adduced that they have a common hairy ancestor. But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.

It is possible to be so preoccupied by atoning vicariously for the sins of one’s predecessors that one ceases to be aware of one’s personal failures and shortcomings.

While the Archbishop of Canterbury purports to apologise on behalf of the Church of England, he most certainly does not apologise on behalf of Cranmer, or, he suspects, on behalf of millions of Anglicans who have an understanding of church teaching or writing which is time-bound or culture-bound. If he continues along this path, Dr Williams will find himself apologising on behalf of Jesus for choosing to become incarnate in a backward time and strange land. He ought to at least apologise for not waiting until the era of mass communication – spreading the gospel could have been so much easier via the internet.

But even more bizarrely, the Church has addressed its contrition directly to the Victorian scientist himself, even though he died 126 years ago.

Why on earth is the Church of England addressing the dead?

At least Cranmer can agree with one line of the apology:

‘People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception.’

The Church of England is certainly no exception. One wonders if this ‘apology’ is simply a political move to distance itself from the furore surrounding ‘Creationism’. It seems it is now a sin to engage in the philosophical dimension of science, and heresy to question any aspect of the scientific method - even when practitioners of that method elevate theory to fact.


Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

His Grace the Archbishop

Your Grace

These ignorant Homo pseudo-Sapiens !!!

It is patently obvious to any objective Observer that :

1. Homo psdo-Sapiens is NOT a "higher" form of life descended from Apes

but rather

2. Apes (perhaps excluding monkey-eating Chimps) are a HiGHER form of life ascended from these cruel Humans

The real puzzle is :

* why the Good Lord chose InCarnation as one of these Anglican Humans, despite their obvious Evolutionista-Intellectual limitations

* rather than as an Intelligently-Designed Avian Form able to float on Thermals above the dusty Market Place of Empires & Brown-induced Economic Crashes - if only these bizarre Humans would refrain from poisoning & egg-stealing

The Good Lord must have an egregious fondness for these H. ps-Sap's

but that's a point :

Why don't these Anglicans issue an Apology to all the Apes (except perhaps Chimp Monkey-Hunters) & Avians for the C of E's contributions to the persecution of these wondrous creatures

Je reste le Vestre Grace's servant obedient etc

G Eagle

15 September 2008 at 08:33  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Humility is a good thing, of course.

But self-crucifixion?

15 September 2008 at 08:34  
Blogger Botogol said...

sigh, no Cramner I am sure you know: Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't say that man descended from apes: it is a theory that explains the mechanism by which the apes and the humans that we see today have descended from a common ancestor.

That there *was* a common ancestor - which was very hard to see and therefore revolutionary in Darwins time - has been made pretty obvious by the discovery of shared and common DNA, and what it tells us about the family tree of life.

Now I cannot disprove the idea that the evolution of species over a long period of time did not happen by natural selection, but was guided by a supernatural being. But, if so, this was a being who went to great lengths to make it look as if was natural selection what dunnit.

(I agree with you about the ludicrous nature of the apology, though)

15 September 2008 at 09:03  
Anonymous Nell said...

Wot looks like a long time to you, Botogol, is the twinkling of an eye to God.

I have no problem at all in believing that He set up the whole system exactly the way it is, including natural selection. The fact that humanity (ha ha) has taken millions of its own years to crawl this far, and still can't wonder at the difference between its own tiny hubristic noddle and the extent of God's reasoning, method, and timing, makes it all the clearer to me that God Is.

I therefore remain in some sympathy with G. Eagle Esq. on one point: Homo Sapiens is a typically arrogant misnomer. I go further: mankind must be the stupidest, lowest, nastiest, and altogether worst thing in the entire universe. Mankind just can't face the truth that it's more than half devil and pollutes all Creation. No wonder no other life seems to be near us!

God must be pure Love even to consider giving us a chance to figure anything out at all - let alone to give us this beautiful planet to turn into Hell.

15 September 2008 at 10:20  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I read somewhere, once, that we share about 50% of our DNA genetic encoding with a banana! Is this true? And what an earth could it mean?

15 September 2008 at 11:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it seems there is an element of truth in our shared ancestry with bananas, here are some interesting and witty comments on Yahoo Answers

15 September 2008 at 11:45  
Blogger mongoose said...

DNA supplies the "building blocks of life". DNA is DNA whether it's in a banana, an ape or an archbishop. That's why, Your Grace, archbishops and apes alike eat bananas. And it's why the building blocks are held in common. (Think of them as little Lego bricks. The bricks are the same but the models one makes can vary almost limitlessly.)

Darwin, of course, didn't know about DNA. Which makes his theory all the more spectacular. But as botogol implies, it will always remain just a theory. That's the way science works. But is a theory that is supported by an enormous amount of scientific evidence.

The counter argument - aka "intelligent design" - does not IMHO have any supporting evidence whatsoever. Not one jot, dot, squiggle or squeak is there to support it.

About the apology - daft.

15 September 2008 at 13:27  
Anonymous len said...

The church of england is like a ship that the rudder has fallen off, the sail has blown away, and the captain has no idea what direction he is heading.
How long before it hits the rocks or runs aground?

15 September 2008 at 13:40  
Blogger Holy Smoke said...

When the COE starts aping modern society and its relativist values there is a big problem. What will be next reparations to Rome?

15 September 2008 at 13:41  
Blogger McKenzie said...


Consider the cell. Made up of DNA, which is information encoded, and proteins. Neither has the ability to form a cell on its own. The question is, which came first the information, or, the proteins?
And what manner of primitive soup would dream up both the DNA and the proteins separately? Not evidence granted, but a question worthy of study non the less.
I also find the theory of 'irreducible complexity' very fascinating. Again, not evidence, but a subject worthy of study. Hysteria will not add 'one jot' to the academic debate, but like your self, I remain firm in my religion.

15 September 2008 at 13:41  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

No, Cranmer is right, according to Darwin we are the mutant progeny of Apes (from the distant past).

We are descended from Apes, consequently we shall love one and other.

15 September 2008 at 13:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.

Quite, and then some.

Do you have an explanation as to why this, should be well know fact, is no such thing?

Could it be that our education system, our established religion and our ruling class, have conspired deliberately to destroy our faith in/knowledge about, the existence of our creator?

All of the combined efforts of science, will never be able to conclusively prove the non existence of a creator. A fact that was as self apparently true 150 years ago, as it is today.

So why has our education system being trying so damned hard for so long to convince our young that science can ever come up with any type of useful insight or ultimate answers. However much they waste borrowing vast amounts of cash from the banking system, to build particle bashing machines, or not?

Our worldly future is in the hands of psychopaths, as usual. Whats worse many of these lunatics have no idea how detached they have become from there fellow man. They breed us like rabbits, treat us like enslaves laboratory rats, and then slaughter us like lambs when the idea takes their fancy.

But what they really dont like at all, is any of us knowing what they KNOW. Otherwise we might stop accepting our bars of 'soap' and directions to our allotted 'bath houses.'


15 September 2008 at 13:50  
Blogger korepel said...

Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are the biggest science frauds. Scientists groping in the dark speak as if they were eye-witnesses to formation of the universe / origin & development of life. They think giving credit to God deprives them of reputation & status. It may be noted that Stephen Hawking while dealing with the Big Bang says that in order for certain cosmic events to happen, progress, and be maintained as a system under control, the overlordship of an Almighty God cannot be ruled out. The same will also apply to life on earth.

The Church of England can as well tender an apology to all the atheistic scientists of all time for establishing itself as a religious(Christian) institution and believing in God throughout its history(almost till now), then dissolve itself.

Bangalore, India JS Karkada

15 September 2008 at 14:30  
Blogger mongoose said...


Our very own chicken and egg problem? Or maybe it's our Biological Big Bang moment.

Protein or DNA first? I don't think that we have settled on an "answer" but the currently popular thoughts are all about the RNA World theory.

Darwin's idea was that life started in the chemistry labs of shallow seaside pools warmed by the sun. A romantically appealing picture. Maybe it got sparked off by a flash of Frankenstein's lightning. He didn't know any of the chemistry really.

Irreducible complexity? One of the amoebas has the most complex genome yet unravelled (or it used to have). That seems a pretty unintelligent use of complexity and it's surely pretty poor design.

Successful species are successful because they can successfully reproduce with appropriate mutations. So it may be that there is some sort of efficient genome size and that evolution has a sense of humour. Too small a code and you get to be a banana and hang from a tree; too big and you fail to copy the code reliably enough to do much and you get to be an amoeba. Be in the middle, and you get to be an archbishop.

And as for religion, well, I am a bit lapsed myself but I leave all to their own. I just think that trying to out-trump science by looking for a scientific model is a) a dead dodo and b) undermines the religion it seeks to support.

Evolution does away with the need for design. That's partly the point of it. Religion is about faith; you don't need science.

15 September 2008 at 14:38  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Science is a God given miracle, it serves no purpose to attempt to out trump it.
The Amoeba is another God given creation which is part of the grand ecosystem.
Evolution has a sense of humour? I can live with that.
Religion is about faith, which I have, and I need science, it would require a stranger sense of humour than evolution's to suggest otherwise.

15 September 2008 at 14:55  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Its not that there is any objection to apologising for harm, insult or injury that may occasion another thorough fault or omission, if one is the cause of such offence, it is simply that it has no value when, either individually or collectively, one had no influence on the activities in question, consequently such apologies when offered are trite and inconsequential, I would go as far as to say the apology itself could be taken as an offence by belittling and/or trivialising the original maleficence to a modern audience however charitably meant or well intended.

Your Grace reminds us of the apology for the crusades, I could never understand why JPII did this. After 5-600 years of peaceful Christianity thriving in the Holy Land,(Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, Egypy, Persia & Mesopotamia) Muslim armies invaded the Levant putting all and sundry to the sword, rape, pillage and slavery were the order of the day. Successive Muslim rulers continued to export this aggressive policy for the next 400 years against Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and when finally the Pope requests Christian Kings protect pilgrims and put a stop to it, we in the west are supposed to feel guilty 1000 years later.

Again I have done one or two reprehensible things in my time but slavery was never one of them, I cannot see how anyone today is even in a position to offer an apology on this (or any other historic misbehaviour).

If the ABC is feeling in a generous mood, how about apologising for 300 years of persecution and judicial torture and murder of English Catholics for holding on to the ancient faith of their fathers and ancestors in this land, the sequestration of the monasteries, hospitals, universities, Churches, Cathedrals, land and property. The infliction of poverty, disease and hardship on their own countrymen for generation after generation because they held the same religion but an older faith. If he did, it would nor matter one jot, why because not one person living today was instrumental in the decisions of yore and he is not responsible for the activities or outcomes of previous generations.

15 September 2008 at 15:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In truth, whatever truth is, we are all searching for answers in an incredible sea of mystery that is called life. Some days we fail to realise that we are one in a billion - billion - billion life forms on a planet circling an unremarkable star at the edge of an unremarkable galaxy. You may forget that our galaxy has at least two hundred billion stars, fused, hyper-densed orbs of gas, with planets, moons and atmospheres we can only imagine. And lost beyond the Milky Way there are at least a hundred billion more galaxies that we can only explore with our satellites and our speculation. And, at the end of the day, it is absurd for science or religion to try and answer a really big and fundamental question about existence with a fucking banana or an amoeba!

15 September 2008 at 16:26  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

13:40 Anonymous len "The church of england ..... How long before it hits the rocks or runs aground?

It's like a Detective Story

---- Follow the Money

It's Cash that keeps the CofE together

The CofE will collapse when the money runs out

and unBelieving/Useless Bishops/Clergymen start losing their jobs

15 September 2008 at 16:28  
Blogger McKenzie said...

One prayer to heal the hearts of people who hate.

15 September 2008 at 16:46  
Blogger Fred Preuss said...

There are two institutions in Europe beyond parody: the government of Italy and the Church of England.

15 September 2008 at 16:52  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Selection pressure just seems so abundantly obvious that i find it hard to believe anybody can really question it. You can breed dogs or horses to exhibit desirable traits in a very short period of time. You can make a novel design for a jet engine with a genetic algorithm even.

I do wonder why this debate continues, and even given it is why the church ever gets involved. Science doesnt' care about what religions say, it exists in a completely different sphere of thought.

And the apology is crazy. What is the CoE for again?

15 September 2008 at 18:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would suggest this church are desendants of the rather large Brazil nut.

15 September 2008 at 19:09  
Anonymous len said...

I think the C of E owes us( british christians)an apology for its lack of leadership,lack of commitment,lack of faith.
This is the time to make a stand for the faith.!
The c of e is totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world!.

15 September 2008 at 19:10  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Of all these comments, the most interesting is The Recusant's. Perhaps Your Grace would give us your thoughts on this. It seems reasonable if the RCs are prepared to apologise for the Crusades that the CofE should apologise for the Reformation.

I'm not advocating it - I'm just agreeing with The Recusant that is completely logical.

15 September 2008 at 19:16  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

One of Darwin's colleagues - it might have been Huxley, but don't quote me - said when he heard of the theory, "How stupid not to have seen it for myself".

I felt exactly the same when I saw your juxtaposition of Darwin and Dr Williams. The resemblance really is quite uncanny.

15 September 2008 at 20:00  
Anonymous len said...

The whole point of this argument is not whether Darwin looked into the mirror one day and saw a passing resemblance to a chimpanzee!!!
But the rediculous apology from the C of E!!!

15 September 2008 at 20:24  
Blogger Didactophobe said...

Darwin himself was a theist and was troubled by the implications which his work held for traditional beliefs. The modern Church of England goes much farther than Darwin ever did, in ditching faith in God and embracing faith in science.

To my mind, theistic evolution provides the best explanation for our existence on this planet. God created this universe, knowing that in about 9 billion years Planet Earth would form and about 6 billion years after that Didactophobe would be born. To my mind, that illustrates the power of God far more powerfully than the idea of God magically creating everything in six days of 24 hours.

However it all happened, however, the critical fact is that nothing could exist without God. I would certainly not mock someone who took Genesis literally: I do despair over a so-called Christian church and so-called Christian clergy who are determined to undermine and ridicule everything which is dear to the Christian faith.

15 September 2008 at 20:28  
Blogger McKenzie said...

When the ABC says things like this recent blurt, I think he is fully aware that it opens an encyclopedia of questions and arguments which there are as yet no real conclusive answers. I think this is his objective. His target audience is, I think, anyone who is on duty at the time. I mean to say that you can run it through your head all day and the arguments are flabbergasting. I am sure we all have a billion things to say, which takes years of knowledge acquiring activity to learn and which cannot all be bloged out in a few condensed sentences. If he does nothing else, he does provoke debate, all be it in a very 'beyond parody' fashion. Does he have an email address? I think somebody should ask him to explain himself in layman's terms. Not that I am equating every one as laymen, but I most certainly am.

15 September 2008 at 20:32  
Blogger Dissenter said...

Various apologies from the bishops are due, but not for misunderstanding Darwin.

Evolution does not merely state that we are descended from apes (or ape like ancestors as purists will have it), but from hydrogen atoms, via dirty water and sparks and a series of intermediate animals, evidence for which has never been found. As one creationist wag put it, 'goo to you via the zoo'. All this supposedly happend by a series of undirected collisions of simple chemicals. There are laws against this happening, scientific laws. These laws are enforced.

The secular humanist establishment is very keen to prevent Darwinism being questioned, for the very good reason (from its point of view) that the evidence is nowhere near as sound as it is cracked up to be and will not withstand critical examination. The idea that evolutionism is science and questioning it is a sign of ignorance or madness is a big lie.

For example, consider the light and peppered moths (biston betularia), taught as evidence of evolution to all schoolchildren. Setting aside the frauds perpetrated by the original researcher Kettlewell, the proportion of light to dark variants changed over time, but they were still the same peppered moths. No new genetic material was made, therefore this was not evolution in any meaningful sense of the word. Professor Steve Jones, an atheist and 'evolutionary biologist' claimed this was the best example of evolution. What's the worst?

When you hear the Dawkinists say, with excitable curses, that we must stop anyone from them 'teaching creationism', substitute for that bogey phrase the phrase 'questioning Darwinism' and see how it alters the sense of the demand.

Of course if they said plainly that "we must at all costs prevent people questioning Darwinism' this would be a disgrace to free thought and true science. They therefore portray all Darwin dissent as being inspired by religious fundamentalism. Sir Harry Kroto (who is currently trying to get Michael Reiss fired) asserted that 'teaching creationism' was a recipe to turn children into suicide bombers, while the execrable self promoter Dawkins has compared it to child abuse.

The decent (but IMO much mistaken) reverend professor Michael Reiss of the Royal Society is being vilified by the above gentlemen and their associates because he has dared to suggest that respectful dialogue would be better than condescending ridicule if a pupil raised the subject in class. He does not believe in direct divine creation or intelligent design and does not want time for them in the science curriculum, he has merely asked for a little understanding and dialogue.

Such hate! What are they afraid of?See how how determined they are to protect evolutionism from sceptical questioning.

So Rowan, back down over Sharia law, go soft over homosexual 'marriage', back down to the atheists over origins (when there is SUCH a strong case to be made against Darwin on the science AND the social effects) seems like we want to be chums with everyone....except the Evangelicals.

Question-if evolutionism ios so comnpatible with Christianity, how come so many people cite it as a reason for not believing? Know any good hymns praising God for His work in random mutation and survival of the fittest?

Looks like the C of E's on a one way ticket to oblivion.

I remain in the C of E-for now. Might not be much longer.

15 September 2008 at 21:31  
Anonymous Rebel Saint said...

I remain a member of the congregation at my local parish because of the tremendous faith, mission & servitude of my fellow brothers & sisters. However I withdrew my name from the electoral roll over the "Inevitable Sharia" comments and because of the applause they received at the synod shortly afterwards. I shall now be forced to withdraw my financial support, giving only my time and talents. These are the only ways I can conceive of which might send some sort of protest to the the hierarchy whilst not damaging the local church. Anyone got any better suggestions?

15 September 2008 at 22:24  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

I suggest dissenter reads more, as abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, which is what Darwin was on about.

Not that I find anything wrong with abiogenesis, mind.

15 September 2008 at 23:22  
Anonymous len said...

I was bought up in the anglican church,I wouldn`t touch it with a barge pole now!
Do the Leadership really believe in God and the Bible or is it just a job to them?.

15 September 2008 at 23:41  
Anonymous Morus said...

I was too distracted by the fact that His Grace worked the lyrics of Jesus Christ Superstar into a blogpost to actually read any of the comments.

Secret fan of Lord Lloyd Webber, Your Grace? For shame...

15 September 2008 at 23:50  
Anonymous Morus said...

For those who doubt...

I will now be perusing His Grace's posts in case on stumbling across a lietmotif from 'Starlight Express', or perchance a snippet of 'Joseph and his Technicolour Dreamcoat'.

Words, otherwise, escape me...

15 September 2008 at 23:53  
Blogger mongoose said...

Our problems arise when the various issues are conflated.

The stoutness or otherwise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution (as amended) is a scientific one. To my humble eye, the evidence is overwhelming and any contradictory scientific theory has some catastrophically heavy lifting to do.

The so-called (scientific) theory of Intelligent Design has, again to my humble eye, little by way of science to support it. That does not mean that I make any argument with someone who wants to have faith that a deity created a universe which evolved in an orderly and designed way. That is for them to have faith in. I merely say that the (scientific) arguments currently put forward hold no water and are not scientific. So, as Dissenter reports Reiss saying, please make your argument for ID in Religious Education classes rather than in Science classes.

Nor do I argue with folk who believe (or have faith) verbatim et litteratim in the scriptures that say God created in his six days and then had a kip. Arguing against faith by using the reason of science is more or less a category error.

When, and if, the Large Hadron Collider has done its work and we understand the creation of all that we can see back to a squillionth of a second after Big Bang, I will not have a problem with anyone who asks: why did that happen and who made that happen? And if they hold that God did it then that will be fine.

Real scientists aren't afraid of religion. I know many scientists who are religious. What we don't like is when the two subjects get mixed up and religious faith - and increasingly the politicisation of religious orthodoxy in the USA - puts on a silly cloak and calls itself science. As I said above, faith is enough; you don't need to win a science argument. God sees your faith, doesn't he?

15 September 2008 at 23:59  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

I thought the Scots were the ones to apologise for Pontius Pilate - according to tradition.

And shouldn't the French apologise for being French?

16 September 2008 at 00:38  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

Re ultramontane...
"And shouldn't the French apologise for being French?"

What a lovely idea, Your Grace!

Re the ABC and (High) CofE, I wonder:
Who supplies the incense?

16 September 2008 at 02:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The recusant, I don't think that Pope JP11 apologised for the Crusades. Certainly sundry Muslims as is their wont, took some remarks he made about the pillage that accompanied the sacking of Jerusalem as an apology. But there was no condemnation of the whole enterprise as such. On the other hand the Fourth Crusade which degenerated into an attack on the Orthodox was excoriated by Pope Innocent III, but that was for the stupidity of weakening fellow Christians.


16 September 2008 at 03:52  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Morus,

His Grace was never a fan of Starlight Express.

16 September 2008 at 07:22  
Anonymous len said...

God must look upon humanity with a mixture of humour, amazement, and despair.!
(That is Jahweh, the God of abraham, isaac and jacob,there is no other!)

16 September 2008 at 08:03  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

21:31 Dissenter "... So Rowan .... seems like we want to be chums with everyone....except the Evangelicals"


Mr Williams & his over-paid Bishop-colleagues would be well advised to re-consider the wisdom of their consistently trampling over Evangelicals

It is Evangelicals who are paying their Salaries, in order to support their unBelief

... and Evangelicals don't have to only whinge - the Answer is in our Hands

If we do not like what is happening in the Church of England, we can strike back by declining to write cheques in favour of the C of E unless and until the C of E's Leadership is dominated by Believers, instead of these UnBelievers

Bishops (saving his Grace A/B C) may not care about Christianity - but they do care about what we do with our Wallets

I have the honour to remain your Grace's obedient Servant etc

G Eagle

16 September 2008 at 08:36  
Blogger McKenzie said...

Primordial soup random spew mutation chaos theory: it's not for me but good luck with it anyways.

16 September 2008 at 17:52  
Anonymous tomorow belongs to mo said...

Is the real reason that the vast majority of Anglicans/Catholics/Methodists/Quakers/Buddhists/Jews refuse to acknowledge the true nature of Islam due to FEAR?

"When you examine these ideas, they can all be summarized by one word - FEAR. Those who can function in the presence of fear are heroes. So you must be a little bit of a hero to learn about Islam.

The next time you are speaking with someone about Islam and they have no facts about the doctrine or history, ask them: What is your reason for not learning about Islam? Why are you afraid of this knowledge?

Its the the same sort of fear as the fear of cancer:

"This is a big worry by kafirs. There is a sneaky suspicion that Islam is the equivalent of cancer, and if we have cancer, we have to do something. And that something may be drastic. Besides, Islam is so huge, that we can't afford to do anything, so it is better to do nothing.

Not learning because you don't want to think about what to do is like not getting the biopsy test because you might not like the results and have to deal with the possible cancer results. The smart thing, of course, is to get the data taken early."

Islam is a cancer in the early stages of invasiveness. It can be cured if treated early enough by radical surgery. But if left to proliferate it will be ultimately be deadly.


16 September 2008 at 23:54  
Anonymous len said...

Political correctness(the moral code of socialist secular humanism) has made being judgemental a sin.
Thus taking away the rights of the individual and making the victim suffer in silence.
Hence people being afraid to express their opinion!!

17 September 2008 at 07:47  
Anonymous Charles Darwin said...

Your Grace, I am inclined to agree.

The direct intervention of your bretheren to prevent my being awarded a knighthood following the publication of The Origin was not known to me in life.

The fact that evolutionary theory is unchallenged as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth and has become the basis of modern biology is reward enough. It far outweighs any invented honours of shaven apes, no matter whether they wear a crown or a mitre.

17 September 2008 at 21:50  
Blogger McKenzie said...

To run an analogy, you either have a high Midichlorian count or you don't: to all the brethren, "May the Force be with you"!

Why does everyone automatically assume that believers hate science? I love Charlie Darwin, he was cool and he had balls. Post the essay on here which in absolute terms disproves the existence of God. Until then, suck my dick!

18 September 2008 at 16:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said my son!

18 September 2008 at 20:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older