ORGASM FOR BRITAIN'S POLITICALLY CORRECT POLICE: A REAL LIVE "HOMOPHOBE" FOUND

You've got schoolkids carrying machine pistols there and this is what they waste their time on

Common sense has, for once, reined in the lunatic fringe of homophobia. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided not to pursue a case against an Oxford University student who went up to a mounted policeman and suggested that his horse was gay. The horse did not complain, but the police did.

Sam Brown, 21, from Belfast, was out on the town with friends last May celebrating the end of his finals. As is common among the young in such circumstances of euphoric relief, a drink or two had been taken. Mr Brown, then of Balliol College and now a graduate in English literature, decided to exercise his skill in the English language when he and a group of carousing friends encountered a mounted patrol of the Thames Valley Police in the city's High Street. "Excuse me," Mr Brown ventured to the officer towering above him, "do you realise your horse is gay?". It seemed a harmless enough, if not rivetingly witty, remark. Moments later, however, Mr Brown was sobered by the appearance of two squad cars. A posse of unmounted officers arrested him and charged him under Section 5 of the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks.

His remark, it was alleged, was deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The Act, however, does not make clear whether equine alarm and distress are covered by its provisions, or whether only human beings are likely to be offended. The police took the view that it was the human beings who could have been harassed. Mr Brown spent a night in the cells and was fined 80 pounds, which he refused to pay. So the police took the case to the CPS.

But at Oxford Magistrates' Court yesterday the Crown prosecutors threw in the towel. Cariad Eveson-Webb, for the CPS, told the court: "In their opinion there is not enough evidence to prove [Mr Brown's behaviour] was disorderly." Thames Valley Police yesterday defended its decision to take the case to court. "We present the case to the CPS, and they make the decision to proceed or not," a spokesman said. "He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by."

More here



Intelligent Design is Not About Religion

Where's that famous "tolerance" the Left are always preaching about?

If Kansas can be considered Ground Zero in the debate between Darwinists vs. Intelligent Design proponents, a recent explosion rocking the battle zone took place last month at the University of Kansas in its religious studies department. A course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," was to be offered. I suspected, despite the closed-mindedness of the department chairman-Paul Mirecki-and his approach to relegating ID to "mythology," there would have been lively debates in the classroom. And had this been the case, hopefully more light than heat would have been shed on a debate that simply won't go away between Darwinists, who base their theory more on naturalism-a philosophy-than science, and the proponents of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is a systematic evaluation of observed biological phenomena resulting in the logical conclusion that design is inherent in living systems. The inescapable implication-and I guess the thing that drives its critics hysterical-is that design implies A Designer. Why this never presents a problem when we admire a work of art by Van Gogh or a musical composition by Claude Debussy escapes me. But logic and common sense dissipates when Darwinists are confronted by an alternate theory to their most hallowed orthodoxy. And instead of dealing with the substance of the arguments for ID, they skewer its proponents, labeling them as "stealth creationists;" a charge that is not altogether fair.

While many Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists support Intelligent Design as a rational answer to Darwinism, Intelligent Design itself stands apart from biblical creationism as a non-religious approach to origins. William Dembski, one of its chief proponents describes it as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.".........

In order to understand the crux of the issue, one must first understand that the debate between Darwinists and the proponents of Intelligent Design is not about science but a world-view. Science is that which can be demonstrated in a laboratory by a process involving an idea or hypothesis followed by experiments to verify the hypothesis. When sufficient evidence has been accumulated, a theory can be proposed. There have been no such experiments providing the evidence in support of evolution as a testable, scientific theory.

The evidence, if we can call it that, is contained in a fossil record filled with gaps and lacking a single, indisputable, multi-cellular transition form demonstrating one species evolving into another. One would conjecture that if evolution were true, there would have been millions of years of the fossilized remains of species evolving into other species. None have been found.

Steven J. Gould, an ardent evolutionist, admits the evidence does not show gradual change, but sudden appearance and stability: Most fossils species appear all at once, fully formed, and exhibit no directional change throughout their stay in the rocks.....

Klaus Dose, a prominent worker in the field of origin-of-life research comments, "More than 30 years in the field of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life here on Earth rather than its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confession of ignorance." ....

As it turns out, there will be no debate in Professor Mirecki's classroom even though twenty-five students had signed up for the class. In a follow-up story, the Associated Press reported Mirecki had sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said that his course would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."

The class was cancelled and Mirecki was forced to apologize, saying, "I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner." The university's chancellor, Robert Hemenway said Mirecki's comments were "repugnant and vile [and] .misrepresent[ed] everything the university is to stand for."

None of this comes as a surprise. The debate between Darwinism and Intelligent Design is almost always inimical. Instead of addressing both theories in an atmosphere conducive to learning, Darwinists prefer to avoid the substance of the issue and instead, resort to name calling. By denigrating its proponents as "Bible-thumping, knuckle draggers," they quash any open-minded investigation into an alternate theory of the origin of the species; an approach that is, quite frankly, hardly intelligent.

More here