Flunked, Not Expelled: Documented Anti-Semite Interviewed

John Lynch noted the presence of one well-known anti-semite in the interviews. So, you might ask, which naughty atheist did the “Expelled” folks catch out on this unseemly behavior, and how many times did they cut away to goose-stepping Nazis while the interview went on?

Surprise! The anti-semite that Ben Stein shares the big screen with is an “intelligent design” creationism advocate often referred to as an authority on William Dembski’s blog and signer of the Discovery Institute “Dissent from Darwin” list Maciej Giertych. Lynch finds this pearl of Giertych wisdom:

In our civilisation, a righteous person living honestly will not get in conflict with the law, even not knowing it. On the other hand, living in agreement with the letter of the law but dishonestly, derives from the pharisaic attachment to rules but not to ethics. The exploitation of rules, of imprecisely written laws, of gaps in them, of their multitude and inconsistencies, activities on the verge of legality, tax evasion techniques, all formally within the law but unethical, derive from the rabbinical casuistry, from the mentality of deriving ethics from the written law. Yet, such a swindler, acting within the law, has in fact no moral respect for any law. He cannot be compared to the Sabbath traveller sitting on a water bottle, who is also using a convenient interpretation of the Law, but he is doing this in order to fulfil the Law and therefore in full respect for it.

Did the producers bother to give Ben Stein the background on this expert speaking for the “Expelled” conjecture? Did anyone bother to tell Giertych that Kent Hovind is not Jewish?

Please follow and like us:
error

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

One thought on “Flunked, Not Expelled: Documented Anti-Semite Interviewed

  • 2008/04/13 at 2:40 pm
    Permalink

    If you’re really interested you can go to Giertych’s website (giertych.pl) and download his pamphlet called Gender Equalities and Life Issues in the European Union wherein he states things like:

    “It is obvious that to protect potential motherhood some jobs should not be performed by women. Yet placing the cost of employing women, with all the necessary restrictions on what they can do, on employers, will only act against women because employers will not wish to employ those of child bearing age. The utility of women for various jobs is different and this should be recognised. In view of her biological role a woman is endowed with traits that are necessary for performing it and a man with those traits that are needed in the role he has to play. The male and female characteristics are not
    opposites. They are complementary.”

    And:

    “However every director or chief of employment in any enterprise knows that men and women are suited for different kinds of jobs. They have different psychological predispositions and different biological limitations. As Chesterton used to jest the emancipists had a slogan: “we will not be dictated to” and then they all promptly became steno-typists. It turned out that they are perfectly suited for the job of a secretary. They can care about details, they can think about and remember several issues simultaneously, they can sense the mood of the boss, and they can mollify tensions. On the other hand they are usually less successful in executive positions. They take decisions more on the basis of feeling than reason, at times of crisis they
    break down more easily, they have less initiative, are less likely to take risks.”

    And:

    “Most women have jobs that are a burden to them – shop attendants, cleaners, factory workers, nurses. They are on their feet all day. The idea of professional advancement is an illusion for most of them. They treat
    employment as a necessary evil, necessary to support the family and to obtain a retirement pension for themselves. The social system must be reorganised to make it possible for a family to live on a single income and to have a living home with a mother always ready to control children and be available to them. She must have time for them. The job she is doing in the home has a great value to the society, and the society should acknowledge this by finding a way of supporting her and her family. Instead she is referred to as “non-working” and generally scorned for being incapable
    of getting away from household chores.”

    Interesting stuff from someone with a degree in tree physiology.

Comments are closed.