Intelligent Design and the Family

| 33 Comments

San Francisco’s adoption campaign for older children is featuring “Intelligent Design”, and they have this great “Heather Has Two Mommies” sort of poster.

(Original post at the Austringer)

33 Comments

I wonder if some of the ID advocates will now claim there’s some homosexual conspiracy to mock them. Or something.

Keep a weather eye out. This could be amusing.

If there’s a “homosexual conspiracy” to mock ID’ers… I’d better improve my decorating skills so I can join. Sounds like fun!

Like Austriger said, if they’re smart the ID crowd won’t say anything. But at least some of them won’t be able to contain their righteous frothing, I’m sure.

Heather has two mommies.

And Jesus had two daddies.

Dragonscholar said:

I wonder if some of the ID advocates will now claim there’s some homosexual conspiracy to mock them.

For that matter, can they prove they aren’t gay? Yeah, I know, but I couldn’t resist.

Zen said:

Jesus had two daddies.

That my friend, is a bumper sticker screaming to be made and displayed.

Zen, Or as the fanficcers would say “Joseph/Jehovah OTP!”

Wright, My serious bet is this will come up somewhere. Wether it has legs is the question.

while i am delighted to see the term “intelligent design” co-opted for a positive purpose, this kind of post worries me. i’m afraid to find out how many PTers, presumably rational, intelligent, educated types, will turn out to be homophobic. hopefully the numbers are very low, but i just don’t know…

For Grady, although so far he hasn’t demonstrated the brains of a gnat or any inclination to use them, in the hope he’ll get a clue.

Display your foolishness as much as you like. Disagree with us as much as you like.

We’re not like those wimp ID sites, where most contrary comments never appear, or shortly disappear.

But don’t talk filthy around the kids. This is intended to be a family friendly site (for all families, regardless of gender composition):

Here’s the word, from the “Comment Integrity Policy”:

As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.

Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.

Catch a clue the first time around, as difficult as that may be for a fellow with your challenges.

And don’t let there be a second time.

What Steviepinhead just said…

Well here’s one SWM who thinks this is brilliant.

For DRE: I felt the same way myself when I saw this. I can only imagine how freaked out the zealots are right now. But I think most PTers are intelligent and open minded. Remember, its the ID sheep that have trouble thinking for themselves or seeing people without their judgment glasses on. More than anything I think, the difference between us and ID is the scientific method. We use it not just to prove our theories hold water, but also to prove ourselves wrong. We are prepared to be wrong and learn from it, they are never prepared to be wrong. So give even the few that come here and that still have hangups, a chance, they may grow up and learn something about people being different.

Those are cool ads. I don’t mind if they are just models, but it would be even better if they were real families.

“Speaking of offensise comments; doesn’t the remark about Jesus having two daddies count as…in this context…hate speech against religion.”

No.

“Or, perhaps, as stirring us ethnic hatred.”

No, you silly thing.

“Just wondering about your “integrity” policy.”

What are you wondering about, exactly?

“Lets see how your “integrity” works.”

It works just fine.

“Speaking of offensise comments; doesn’t the remark about Jesus having two daddies count as…in this context…hate speech against religion.”

Fundie martyr complex again. Oh, the pain.

Anti Atheist Wrote:

Speaking of offensise comments; doesn’t the remark about Jesus having two daddies count as…in this context…hate speech against religion.

It should, but, you see, “offensive” is subjective.

So, on this site, gratuitous and unwarranted attacks against other people based on their religious feelings (and make no mistake, attacks against long-gone personages deemed holy are not attacks against those personages, but against the ones who deem the personage holy) are not considered subjectively offensive, regardless of whether a reasonable person would find such gratuitous and unwarranted attack offensive.

Because, you see, to the those “people” making such comments, YOUR right to the dignity of your own beliefs does not matter. Only THEIR right to express their opinion, no matter how vile, matters. Because your opinion is offensive to them, they have to attack you.

Where is Paul Gross when you need him?

It’s fascinating how the far right’s defense of “alternative science” parellels the defense of “alternative families.”

Fred Midden said: YOUR right to the dignity of your own beliefs does not matter.

What makes you think you have a right to the dignity of your own beliefs?

“Speaking of offensise comments; doesn’t the remark about Jesus having two daddies count as…in this context…hate speech against religion.”

Personally, as a Christian, I find the hatefilled antics of Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church more likely to promote or incite hatred against Christians than a gentle gibe about Jesus having two daddies. At worst it’s offensive and living with things one finds offensive is part of living in a free and democratic society.

I’m not too keen on anything good being associated with ‘intelligent design’ without express disavowal of ‘intelligent design’ as a purported concept of biology, but if it does make some of the cdesign proponentists froth, it will be very amusing.

Because your opinion is offensive to them, they have to attack you.

By jove, there may be something to that.

Science Avenger Wrote:

Fred Midden said: YOUR right to the dignity of your own beliefs does not matter.

What makes you think you have a right to the dignity of your own beliefs?

Primarily the accumulated wisdom of enlightenment thinking: Freedom of conscience; the reasonable expectation that members of a society will refrain from attacking each other gratuitously and without warrant for disagreements of opinion; that a primary and necessary element of a good society is that one person will respect another person’s right to believe what he wishes, even (especially!) where they disagree on that opinion.

But, of course, you are free to disagree.

Wesley R. Elsberry Wrote:

Because your opinion is offensive to them, they have to attack you.

By jove, there may be something to that.

Thank you for providing that link, Wesley. That is exactly the kind of thing to which I object. One can fully and exactingly explore the facts, theories and ideas without this type of brutish behavior.

“Jesus had two daddies” is a mildly amusing perspective on the story of Immaculate Conception. It’s hard for me to imagine how anyone could see it as more offensive or dangerous than that.

But Jove was a pagan deity. ;)

(But the details of that are Greek to me.)

Fred Midden, if you can hate the sin but not the sinner, why can’t we hate the belief and not the believer? You may feel hurt when the absurdities of your belief are mocked, but you should not be allowed to claim that your faith is so privileged that it must never be questioned.

I see nothing wrong with a non-theist pointing out flaws in the beliefs and actions of theists to other non-theists on a blog like this. We do not owe you so much respect that we must never say anything critical of your faith.

I know your Bible says a man called Yeshua commanded you to go out into the world and preach the good news to all creation (Mark 16:15) so you have no choice, but have you considered that we might feel affronted when you try to dissuade us from reality?

Mind you, I’m not so clear in my mind about hating the bigotry and not the bigot. When people like Falwell promote hatred of minorities and enrich themselves while appealing to the basest instincts of their followers, I find it difficult to find anything positive to say about them and those who enable them.

Fred Midden said:

…a primary and necessary element of a good society is that one person will respect another person’s right to believe what he wishes, even (especially!) where they disagree on that opinion.

But, of course, you are free to disagree.

Indeed I do. Freedom of conscience does not mean freedom from criticism. It means freedom from force (especially of the state) with regard to your views. Believe what you will. I for one will never lift a finger to force you to do otherwise. But my freedom to criticize what you say is just as important as your right to say it.

It’s all part of the marketplace of ideas. May those ideas best able to withstand criticism prevail, to the betterment of all.

It’s all part of the marketplace of ideas. May those ideas best able to withstand criticism prevail, to the betterment of all.

“At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted.” Eric Idle

JohnS Wrote:

Fred Midden, if you can hate the sin but not the sinner, why can’t we hate the belief and not the believer? You may feel hurt when the absurdities of your belief are mocked, but you should not be allowed to claim that your faith is so privileged that it must never be questioned.

I see nothing wrong with a non-theist pointing out flaws in the beliefs and actions of theists to other non-theists on a blog like this. We do not owe you so much respect that we must never say anything critical of your faith.

I know your Bible says a man called Yeshua commanded you to go out into the world and preach the good news to all creation (Mark 16:15) so you have no choice, but have you considered that we might feel affronted when you try to dissuade us from reality?

Mind you, I’m not so clear in my mind about hating the bigotry and not the bigot. When people like Falwell promote hatred of minorities and enrich themselves while appealing to the basest instincts of their followers, I find it difficult to find anything positive to say about them and those who enable them.

Well, while that was a really interesting argument, it is completely lost on me. I am not a Christian, nor am I religious. Not that that matters. My point is simply that members of a society should refrain from attacking each other gratuitously and without warrant. I am not saying that anyone’s opinion is beyond discussion or criticism, just that attacking someone is not discussion or criticism. And religious bigotry is, in my mind, little different than any other kind of bigotry. I’d just as soon have none of it.

But if you decide that it is okay for you to hate someone else who you feel is a bigot, don’t be surprised if someone else hates you because they feel that you are a bigot.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 126, byte 536 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Interesting. No minority families adopting white children.

Older children in the foster/adoptive system are disproportionately children of color. So, one would expect that far more white parents would adopt minorities than minorities would adopt whites. Indeed, it looked like all the adopted children who were featured were minorities. This is not shocking in a major urban center.

Personally, I think there is a lot of room for satire in our lives. I’m Christian, and I’m gay. Personally, I make jokes about both, but I try to only make jokes where I would be comfortable making them with a representative portion of the population in the room (so jokes that reasonable gay or Christian people would not mind). However, the politically active (blog readers) tend to be highly oversensitive to comedy - on both sides, though right-wingers seem the least able to deal with it. However, I’ve definitely known gay activists who have to be complaining about something all the time too. It’s not a healthy way to approach life.

Jesus had two daddies is sufficiently funny and well humored that a person should be able to deal with it without flipping out. Seriously, get a grip. If you think it’s blasphemous, you’ll need to deal. Also, I’m not aware of anything in Christian theology that says nonbelievers need to avoid humorous jokes about the Lord. If you think that religion or sexuality should be beyond the reach of all humor, then you’re dooming yourself to unhappiness and bitterness. Those emotional states are not considered healthy within either the secular or Christian communities.

I think Dre and others’ worries are unfounded: Every, and I use that word rarely, but EVERY atheist/agnostic/deist I know is a social libertarian. Gay parents are the least of our worries. Actually, that’s a misnomer, as it makes me quite happy to see these young people have parents (and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts those are real families, not models) of all stripes.

I’d love to see these posters turned into a national campaign. Nothing so damningly puts the lie to the fundie bogeyman of homosexuality as caring, committed, multiracial gay and lesbian families. Not to mention the posters’ main message: namely, that every child needs a home.

Yeah, and if you decide that it is okay for you to hate someone else because they are a cannibal, don’t be surprised if someone else hates you because they feel that you are a cannibal. If you decide to hate theives, don’t be surprised if someone else hates you because they feel you are a theif.

Really Fred, such relativistic twaddle…

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Wesley R. Elsberry published on May 17, 2007 1:35 PM.

Flock of Dodos on Showtime on Thursday was the previous entry in this blog.

Is Creationism Child’s Play? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter