Creationist Wisdom #909: Creationist for Kavanaugh

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the News-Gazette of Champaign, Illinois. It’s titled Smear campaign was a disgrace, and it doesn’t look like the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Dan. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

The front page of The News-Gazette on Friday said “Law professors: Don’t confirm him.” Of course professors would say that about Brett Kavanaugh as the majority of them are Democrats with an agenda because of their belief in the ancient story of evolution [ancient?], which claims that there is no God who created us.

This letter is a nightmare! Then Dan says:

Their beliefs are not good for our country as they include pro-abortion, socialism, globalism, atheism, Marxism and evolutionism.

Aaaargh!! Some of Kavanaugh’s opponents may have had some of those motives, but what does evolution have to do with that other stuff? After that ark-load, Dan tells us:

It is a disgrace that the Democrats ignored the vital issues and used only a dirty smear campaign. They will use anything to destroy the reputation of anybody who is against their wicked agendas.

Well, yes, the anti-Kavanaugh campaign was disgraceful, but evolution had nothing to do with it. Our opinion of the ultimate problem can be found here: Spectral Evidence Legal Definition, and see also The Salem Witch Trials: A legal bibliography. Dan continues:

I am sure that the ones who used the dirty smear campaign could not survive such an attack against themselves.

That’s true. No one can refute spectral evidence. And now we come to the end:

Brett Kavanaugh will not try to change the constitution or abuse his power. This is the only reason for the smear campaign.

Nor is there anything in Kavanaugh’s record to suggest that he’ll he make any crazy rulings to outlaw evolution or impose creationism on anyone. But let’s not tell that to Dan. We wouldn’t want him to become more upset than he already is.

Copyright © 2018. 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

2 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #909: Creationist for Kavanaugh

  1. Our dear SC displays his ignorance once again: “what does evolution have to do with that other stuff?” His dislike of Marx prevents him from trying to find an answer regarding marxism and especially from consulting a source called International Socialist Review.

    – Only 1,250 copies of the first edition of On the Origin of Species were printed, and they all sold in one day. One of those who obtained a copy was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. Three weeks later, he wrote to Karl Marx:

    “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect.”

    Marx answered a year later that “‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.”
    This is very ironical, because marxism itself is teleological – the classless society is the marxist counterpart of Heaven (on Earth).

    “It is a disgrace that the Democrats ignored the vital issues and used only a dirty smear campaign.”
    Agreed. But I would be more impressed if Republicans instead would attack their own candidates for exactly doing the same (Richard Nixon, George Bush the Elder).

  2. Michael Fugate

    And the pro-Kavanaugh campaign was pretty disgraceful too. Then again grace is not a common attribute of our current political leaders.

    Judges don’t change the wording of the Constitution, but they do get to change its meaning. That is their job, to interpret the meaning.

    The preamble is incredibly vague. Individuals like Dan want “We the people” to include zygotes, some have used it to mean only “people who look and think like me”. The 14th amendment tried to remedy some of this, but again is vague enough to be interpreted meanly for 100 years. Maybe Kavanaugh will surprise me, but I currently don’t hold out much hope for civil liberties of all citizens and others living within our borders.