WorldNetDaily: Theocracy Is Our Only Hope

Buffoon Award

We don’t know what to make of this one. It’s at the website of WorldNetDaily (WND) — the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

The article is Who decides what’s right and wrong?, written by Ben Kinchlow, whose work we’ve mentioned before (see WND: The All-time Worst Creationist Rant). His latest article is so peculiar that it escaped the detection routines built into our Retard-o-tron™. We’ll have to revise its programming.

If we start out discussing Kinchlow’s article from the beginning, you’re going to wonder why we’re bothering with it — it’s mostly about sexual transgressions. That’s why we’re giving you his conclusion first. He ends up saying:

If we all began as an electromagnetically charged single-cell product of lifeless slime, evolving, like other life forms, with no reason or purpose other than survival of the fittest, why should I be subjected to another life form’s delineation of right or wrong?

If no One is in charge, isn’t everyone?

The author is telling us: (1) he can’t figure out morality; (2) you can’t either; and therefore (3) we need to base our laws on his version of religion.

Okay, you know this thing ends up in the hell of theocracy, now let’s start at the beginning. Kinchlow leads off with conventional definitions of right and wrong behavior, and then he asks:

Who sets the standards for right and wrong? Who gives them the right to establish these standards? Suppose we disagree on our definitions of right or wrong … who are you to decide for me? Based on what?

Your Curmudgeon isn’t a moral philosopher, but we once attempted to derive a concept of morality without a supernatural source (see A Secular Source of Morality). It’s certainly not definitive, but it shows that one needn’t declare the effort impossible.

Anyway, the bulk of Kinchlow’s article is little more than a catalog of carnal crimes — with a touch of theft and euthanasia thrown in. We can’t imagine sitting down to write out such a list, but Kinchlow is equal to the task. We’ll spare you a cruise through his wonderland of sinful behavior, but if you like that sort of thing you can click over to WND.

After all that, Kinchlow asks the question we gave you at the start, suggesting that if we’re the products of evolution, there’s no way to decide such matters. Therefore we should all surrender to the cult of Oogity Boogity! Maybe he’s right. Nine out of ten mullahs agree.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Theocracy Is Our Only Hope

  1. It is always frightening to me, that people of his ilk (sorry, but I really like that word) think the only thing that keeps us all from rape, pillage and murder, is the monster god they have created for themselves, because he will punish them. Why am I frightened? Because, what happens if they have a lapse of faith? Would we all need to lock our doors and sit in our houses pointing a loaded gun at the door? And we certainly couldn’t let our children out of the house to cross any streets. I would prefer the company of any of my Atheist friends or family over a carload of Kinchlows with whom I would refuse to break bread.

  2. Ellie:
    Ilk! Ilk! Ilk!
    (Wow! It’s even better with a ! behind it!)
    Seriously- why is it that the only people who think theocracy is our only hope are the ones who think it is the only reason for morality? Self-fulfilling prophecy, when they think that what they see as the breakdown of morality (because it’s no longer universally accepted as biblical only) is the fulfillment of the prophecy they made (that morality would no longer be universally accepted as biblically driven)? It takes a special kind of irrationality to see a thing as a prophecy AND it’s own fulfillment.
    Anyway- Ilk! Ilk!

  3. If no One is in charge, isn’t everyone?

    Everyone is in charge.

    We live in a society. That’s everyone. We conform to the standards of behavior expected of us by the society at large. We are taught these and other standards growing up, and internalize them as our moral compass. Societies codify their expectations for behavior as laws, which change over time as those expectations change. In addition to the rules noted by the writer, most of us are also taught values like empathy, generosity, honesty, etc., which make us social animals and not solitary predators.

    Obviously different societies have different ideas of what constitutes moral behavior, especially in relationships between the sexes. If there was a “One” in charge, this would not be the case. All morals everywhere would be the same, as dictated by the “One”.

    I think the writer has made a good case that there is no “One” in charge. Unfortunately, I believe his intent was to make the case that others should behave in a way that thinks his imaginary “One” requires them to. In other words, he believes he is in charge.

  4. Wow. A government run by religious nutjobs. How’s that working out for Iran?

  5. I like ilk!

    Seriously, the line “The author is telling us: (1) he can’t figure out morality; (2) you can’t either; and therefore (3) we need to base our laws on his version of religion” is absolutely going to be used the next time a religionist tells me that we can’t have morality without (his particular version of) god.

  6. Thank you for the Ilk!