View Full Version : Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
NeoDevin
Aug25-11, 04:08 PM
There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
...
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
...
There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.
Full Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html)
I would tend to agree that belief in evolution is a good indicator of general understanding of science (or perhaps more accurately, that lack of belief in evolution is a good indicator of lack of general understanding of science).
If a candidate cannot accept the preponderance of evidence supporting the theory which is the foundation of virtually all modern biology, and yet still feels qualified to espouse opinions on the topic, how can we trust that their opinions on other subjects are at all evidence based?
If a candidate is so blinded by their ideology that they can't even accept the evidence on something as basic as evolution, and doesn't have the basic integrity to admit "I haven't studied that, I don't know", how confident can we be that their other opinions - whether it be "lower taxes" for the Republicans, or "more social services" for the Democrats, or any other topic an individual is speaking about - will not be based on blind ideology instead of reasonable evidence.
What do you guys think? Is lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum) a deal breaker for you? To me this signifies a fundamental disconnect from reality. I would rather vote for someone whose goals I disagree with, but who I trust to use actual evidence to pursue them and be honest about the evidence, rather than someone who shares the same goals as me, but lacks the mental capacity to rationally assess evidence, and/or is willing to lie in order to gain votes.
Edit: I don't want this thread to diverge to discussing individual policies, but rather to be a general discussion of science literacy and critical thinking and how important such things are to you when supporting a candidate, and whether the lack of these skills is a serious problem in the Republican party.
Excellent post Neo, the things you mentioned are extremely important to me.
micromass
Aug25-11, 05:03 PM
I, personally, don't care if my politicians understand science. However, I do want my politicians to say "I don't know" when confronted to science, instead of simply accepting an ideology without proof.
A person who says that "I don't know, so I can't judge" gains a lot of respect in my book.
Is lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum) a deal breaker for you?
In general - yes. I can imagine situations when it would be not (say someone who doesn't know, but is honest enough to admit that), but I don't trust people who don't understand the basic scientific facts for the same reason Dawkins does. Once an ignorant, always an ignorant.
Dawkins may be a gad-fly, but he has some good points WRT the willful ignorance of potential Republican candidates. Our political system should not be held hostage by politicians with religious agendas.
whether the lack of these skills is a serious problem in the Republican party.
What's far worse to me than that it IS a serious problem in the Republican party is that they absolutely DON'T think it's a serious problem.
Thanks to Astro for sending this article to me.
Rick Perry's Rally
The organizers of Perry's rally were from ministries founded by two apostles/prophets of the movement — The Call, and the International House of Prayer founded by Mike Bickle. Bickle, who led part of Perry's event, has claimed that Oprah Winfrey is a precursor of the Antichrist, and Engle has claimed that gay people are controlled by "demonic spirits." Both have served on the Council of Prophetic Elders initiated by Wagner.
"Lou Engle [has spoken] at length about how one of his sons has started an International House of Prayer in the Castro district of San Francisco and that his son is now expelling demons from homosexuals, and supposedly then this cures them of their homosexuality," says Tabachnick. "He has also held [prayer rallies] around the world."
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare
Proton Soup
Aug25-11, 06:30 PM
it's too bad that Dawkins is simply a brit zoologist and doesn't understand the american political process. if he weren't so single-minded, he might realize that Perry is simply pandering to a certain constituency and we can't reliably infer his actual thoughts and beliefs from such nonsense.
KingNothing
Aug25-11, 06:37 PM
My guess is WhoWee disagrees.
I don't like Richard Dawkins, but I have to agree with his first paragraph - especially:
In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
That might be an exaggeration, but the debate question where every single Republican candidate raised their hand that they'd vote against a debt reduction bill that contained a 10 to 1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases was pretty telling, as was the 2008 Republican debate question about evolution, specifically (but at least that vote wasn't unanimous).
You have a pretty disturbing bunch pushing the GOP bandwagon right now.
Of course, Proton Soup has the most accurate assessment of the situation. The problem is that the climate makes it hard to tell which of the Republican candidates really are idiots and which are only faking it so they can get nominated. (But not impossible - I'm more confident that Christine O'Donnell isn't smart than I am that she isn't a witch.)
KingNothing
Aug25-11, 06:41 PM
All I can say is, I wish there was a fiscally conservative party I could vote for that wasn't totally disconnected from reality when it comes to sexual politics, sex education, and evolution.
A solid, factual education for every person should be fundamental, not something that is argued for and against in politics.
All I can say is, I wish there was a fiscally conservative party I could vote for that wasn't totally disconnected from reality when it comes to sexual politics, sex education, and evolution.
A solid, factual education for every person should be fundamental, not something that is argued for and against in politics.
This is an interesting grouping of political views: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1982/political-typology-2011-ideological-extremes-diverse-center)
They even have a quiz so you can see where you fit.
I was a little surprised to wind up in the post-modern group. I thought I'd wind up closer to the conservative end. All in all, there were a few issues where I don't fit in the post-modern group at all, but I was surprised how many did match my views.
The political spectrum really has shifted to the right and the Republican Party's shift has been even more drastic than the rest of the population (which is why there's only two groups in the Republicans - most of the moderates have become Independents).
My guess is WhoWee disagrees.
o:)
Full disclosure, I thought about challenging turbo's rant - about "willful ignorance" and "held hostage by morons" - but I really don't want to debate religion. I do however think religion will become an issue as the process moves forward and Romney begins to draw critics from both far left and far right.
o:)
Full disclosure, I thought about challenging turbo's rant - about "willful ignorance" and "held hostage by morons" - but I really don't want to debate religion. I do however think religion will become an issue as the process moves forward and Romney begins to draw critics from both far left and far right.Since most of the Republican politicians have decided to cozy up to religious groups, (Evangelicals in Perry's case, for instance) that religion is already a big part of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/magazine/asking-candidates-tougher-questions-about-faith.html?_r=1
One woman who did not appear to be affiliated with [a group of anti-Perry] protesters ushered her son up to the governor and prompted him with questions for Perry like “do you believe in evolution?”
“It’s a theory that’s out there,” Perry told the child. “It’s got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution.”
Perry went on:
[To the boy]: “I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
During Perry’s time as governor the Texas Board of Education has faced intense national scrutiny for its re-framing of controversial subjects including evolution. In 2009, with Perry’s support, a bloc of social conservative school board members was able to change the state’s educational guidelines on evolution “to encourag(e) schools to scrutinize ‘all sides’ of scientific theory, a move some creationists hailed as a victory,” according to a CBS story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-perry-evangelicals-and-evolution/2011/08/18/gIQARsf6NJ_blog.html
Willowz
Aug25-11, 08:10 PM
If Pawlenty would have talked a little bit more on that last debate, Dawkins point would be much more obvious. People might actually think, *is this the guy I should be voting for?* or worse yet, *is this a party I should be in?*.
It's not the guy, but the things he said just to get in the spotlight.
Since most of the Republican politicians have decided to cozy up to religious groups, (Evangelicals in Perry's case, for instance) that religion is already a big part of it.
If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton campaign for a Democrat nobody complains (although Rev Wright was another story). IMO - Perry is trying to solidify a Southern base and we'll see less moving forward. If anyone has noticed - it doesn't help Santorum.
If Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton campaign for a Democrat nobody complains (although Rev Wright was another story). IMO - Perry is trying to solidify a Southern base and we'll see less moving forward. If anyone has noticed - it doesn't help Santorum.The difference is that these politicians are holding prayer retreats, like the one Perry is holding saturday and are actively discussing religion as part of their campaign.
KingNothing
Aug25-11, 08:37 PM
WhoWee, I am curious about something and I'd like to hear your opinion. No, this isn't a trap :).
In your opinion is the GOP better off holding onto their religious allegiances, or ditching them?
o:)
Full disclosure, I thought about challenging turbo's rant - about "willful ignorance" and "held hostage by morons" - but I really don't want to debate religion. I do however think religion will become an issue as the process moves forward and Romney begins to draw critics from both far left and far right.My "rant" about willful ignorance? At what point will the right acknowledge that their movement has been co-opted by radicals who appeal to the unwashed masses? Can anyone here seriously support Bachmann, Palin, etc? I truly hope not, though I am seeing signs of intransigence in PF that make me fear for the US.
Proton Soup
Aug25-11, 08:42 PM
per Jackson/Sharpton comments above, GOP isn't the only one that panders to a religious constituency.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-02/politics/bill.clinton.tour_1_clinton-campaign-hillary-clinton-s-bill-clinton?_s=PM:POLITICS
The difference is that these politicians are holding prayer retreats, like the one Perry is holding saturday and are actively discussing religion as part of their campaign.
I think the longer Perry stays out there and the longer he is attacked over religion - the attacks (from the far left) will intensify and become more hostile to religion and offend a great many people (of all religions). The far left (people like Bill Maher) will not help the President win independent votes with their angry religion-based attacks - again IMO.
This is an interesting grouping of political views: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1982/political-typology-2011-ideological-extremes-diverse-center)
They even have a quiz so you can see where you fit.
I was a little surprised to wind up in the post-modern group. I thought I'd wind up closer to the conservative end. All in all, there were a few issues where I don't fit in the post-modern group at all, but I was surprised how many did match my views.
The political spectrum really has shifted to the right and the Republican Party's shift has been even more drastic than the rest of the population (which is why there's only two groups in the Republicans - most of the moderates have become Independents).
I placed post-modern, too.
I think Dawkins is right on his assessment. I could never vote for any of the current crop of Republicans because I hold very liberal social values AND I think the Republican party thinks it's better to be simple than smart. When they change those two things, I'll take another look at them.
Oh and they have to accept my atheism, too :biggrin:.
per Jackson/Sharpton comments above, GOP isn't the only one that panders to a religious constituency.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-02/politics/bill.clinton.tour_1_clinton-campaign-hillary-clinton-s-bill-clinton?_s=PM:POLITICSThat had to do with countering a perceived racial remark, not about religion. He was doing racist damage control not religious.
Proton Soup
Aug25-11, 08:50 PM
That had to do with countering a perceived racial remark, not about religion. He was doing racist damage control not religious.
what's that got to do with the venue?
I think the longer Perry stays out there and the longer he is attacked over religion - the attacks (from the far left) will intensify and become more hostile to religion and offend a great many people (of all religions). The far left (people like Bill Maher) will not help the President win independent votes with their angry religion-based attacks - again IMO.So, how do we prevent these politicians that are running on religion and scientific misinformation from being elected without alienating the religious fundamentalists?
Ivan Seeking
Aug25-11, 09:32 PM
it's too bad that Dawkins is simply a brit zoologist and doesn't understand the american political process. if he weren't so single-minded, he might realize that Perry is simply pandering to a certain constituency and we can't reliably infer his actual thoughts and beliefs from such nonsense.
In which case the man lacks integrity and is a hypocrite.
Ivan Seeking
Aug25-11, 09:33 PM
How about that; Dawkins and I completely agree on something.
WhoWee, I am curious about something and I'd like to hear your opinion. No, this isn't a trap :).
In your opinion is the GOP better off holding onto their religious allegiances, or ditching them?
That's fair if we stick to politics - I just don't want to debate religion itself.
First, much like Mike Huckabee, I don't think Perry or Santorum are electable because of the way they share their beliefs. I don't think it's because the average person is anti-religion - but rather because abortion is a non-starter. I doubt very seriously if an anti-religion or more specifically a proclaimed atheist candidate would be electable either.
Not to sidetrack, but I saw an interview with Al Sharpton a few months ago and the subject was abortion. Al was careful to walk the Dem Party line and support it - then the host asked him if he realized how many black babies (specifically) have been aborted since legalization? He was clearly stunned by the numbers (as was I). I've never seen him speechless and absolutely stumped before - his face dropped and his mouth was open for a few moments. He finally recovered and said he'd like to see those numbers - nothing else.
If the left pushes too hard against religion - President Obama could lose support amongst Black and Hispanic church groups as they seek to defend Republicans. Although unless they embrace the Republican - they might just stay home and the vote won't convert (a -1 but not +1).
When the issue moves off of abortion, I think Republicans are wise to resist and push back the ultra liberal agenda when the left pushes the limits with regards to sex education and legalization of drugs. I posted earlier in a thread about a child porn ring regarding psychologists that want to help people who are sexually attracted to children - to better understand and accept them (or some crap - IMO).
A hard left person might find it necessary to defend the undefendable (a la Alan Combs - I actually feel sorry for him sometimes when he defends hard left positions) - by comparison an ultra right person will sound quite reasonable in such a discussion - again IMO.
it's too bad that Dawkins is simply a brit zoologist and doesn't understand the american political process. if he weren't so single-minded, he might realize that Perry is simply pandering to a certain constituency and we can't reliably infer his actual thoughts and beliefs from such nonsense.
Are you sure Dawkins doesn't know that? That Perry might be doing that makes him equally poor a choice IMO.
So, how do we prevent these politicians that are running on religion and scientific misinformation from being elected without alienating the religious fundamentalists?
Why would you want to prevent someone that is easily attacked from running? The left is on their knees praying for Palin to announce - IMO.
Ivan Seeking
Aug25-11, 09:46 PM
Why would you want to prevent someone that is easily attacked from running? The left is on their knees praying for Palin to announce - IMO.
You are assuming that everyone supporting the left wouldn't support a viable option from the right.
I happen to think Obama is unique and unusually talented as politicians go, so it's hard to imagine someone from the right winning me over, but I do want to see a viable and valuable right wing; not what we have today.
The US political process has effectively been reduced to a religious war.
Why would you want to prevent someone that is easily attacked from running? Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.
No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights? What will happen to gay rights? What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge? What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?
I don't want to be thrown back to the Salem Witch trials. These people that the candidates are surrounding them selves with believe in witches and demons!
IMO to all.
You are assuming that everyone supporting the left wouldn't support a viable option from the right.
I happen to think Obama is unique and unusually talented as politicians go, so it's hard to imagine someone from the right winning me over, but I do want to see a viable and valuable right wing; not what we have today.
I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.
I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 10:06 PM
The Republican refusal to accept evolution I'd put right up there with many of the Democratic party views on issues of economics. Both parties cling to ideology on certain issues. There's a saying: You don't want Republicans in the bedroom, or Democrats in the boardroom.
It is true, sadly, that too much of the Republican party has a populist strain that disgains intellectualism. There's probably a term for it, but it's bad. It is the opposite strain of intellectual elitism. There's the one extreme, of intellectuals who think they know what's best, that they are better than everyone else, and that they thus should be given the power to boss everyone else around. Generally these types also hold the view that if you didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc...that you have no business running for President. That is wrong. But the other extreme, one exploited by populists oftentimes to win points with portions of the general public, is a disdain for intellectualism. That anyone intellectual is a cocktail-sipping elitist who has no business giving any opinions on anything and doesn't understand the real world and so forth.
That might be an exaggeration, but the debate question where every single Republican candidate raised their hand that they'd vote against a debt reduction bill that contained a 10 to 1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases was pretty telling, as was the 2008 Republican debate question about evolution, specifically (but at least that vote wasn't unanimous).
The Republicans in 2008 being against evolution was just ideology or playing to the party. Being against tax increases with spending cuts is because the spending cuts virtually never occur.
All I can say is, I wish there was a fiscally conservative party I could vote for that wasn't totally disconnected from reality when it comes to sexual politics, sex education, and evolution.
Usually in other countries, these are known as the Liberal Party (classical liberals, for inidividualism, limited government, free-market capitalism, etc...but they tend to lack the social conservatism of the American Republican party).
At what point will the right acknowledge that their movement has been co-opted by radicals who appeal to the unwashed masses?
The "unwashed masses?" That statement really says a lot.
Can anyone here seriously support Bachmann, Palin, etc? I truly hope not, though I am seeing signs of intransigence in PF that make me fear for the US.
What makes you think the general American public would vote for either of these candidates into the White House? Either of them would likely get Barack Obama re-elected. They can win points with certain segments of the American population, but the overall voting block, they will not win it.
Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.
No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights? What will happen to gay rights? What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge? What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?
I don't want to be thrown back to the Salem Witch trials. These people that the candidates are surrounding them selves with believe in witches and demons!
IMO to all.
I'm starting to think the 2012 ticket will be Romney and Rubio - although I'm not sure of their personal relationship.
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 10:20 PM
Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.
I agree here, but mostly due to their lack of intellect, not per se their views on issues. their views on issues are no different then they always have been.
No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights?
What makes you think Republicans would curb women's rights? Or that they even want to?
What will happen to gay rights?
Things like gay marriage might get stalled, otherwise I don't see much to fear here.
What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge?
What makes you think Republicans would curtail education? Or that Democrats would improve it? the Democratic party answers to the teachers unions, whose interests may or may not be aligned with actually educating the children. Our last Republican president expanded the power of the federal government into education. You could look at Jeb Bush's record on education in Florida, as education is a topic he is very passionate about. Strict conservative Republicans would pull federal involvement out of public education, but they aren't going to do anything to curtail it.
What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?
Last I checked, the Republican party is all about preserving freedom, with the exception of occasionally trying to ram religion down people's throats. The party hellbent on regulating everything from what I've seen is the Democratic party (with a few exceptions). Furthermore, the Republican party will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution as it is written. The Democrats seek to appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to how they think it should be written as opposed to what it actually says.
Republicans tend to be economically liberal, socially totalitarian. Democrats tend to be economically totalitarian, socially liberal. The way to prevent either party from getting out of control is to keep a balance in the government. Remember, the president isn't a king. Having adequate Democrats in Congress will hamstring efforts by a Republican president and having Republicans in Congress can hamstring efforts by a Democratic president if either try to push for reforms seen as radical.
What makes you think Republicans would curb women's rights? Or that they even want to? A woman has a right to decide if she wants an abortion, IMO.
And you didn't respond to the demons and witches.
I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.
:rofl: I remember.
I think the woman the left fears most at this point is Nikki Haley - rather than Bachman or Palin. It's too soon to run her as VP now - but 2016 is another story.
Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.:wink:
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 10:33 PM
A woman has a right to decide if she wants an abortion, IMO.
Republicans might seek to limit abortion to the point at which the fetus becomes sentient to pain, but otherwise, outright stopping abortion would require the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v Wade, which is unlikely but even if that happened, I think we would see a Constitutional amendment make it through that would allow for abortion. Also, with the current issues regarding the economy, the American people are not going to like it if the Republicans win the presidency and then start trying to curb abortion.
And you didn't respond to the demons and witches.
I thought that was a little tongue-in-cheek on your part. Are there candidates that have stated they believe in both demons and witches? (demons I can see a person believing in, I mean if one is a Christian, they can very much believe there are demons, witches that's another story).
Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.:wink::cry: You're so cruel, you really want to give me nightmares, don't you? You know I don't sleep well as it is. :frown:
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 10:37 PM
:rofl: I remember.
I think the woman the left fears most at this point is Nikki Haley - rather than Bachman or Palin. It's too soon to run her as VP now - but 2016 is another story.
Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.:wink:
Nikki Haley is very well-spoken, I think she has great potential.
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 10:43 PM
BTW Evo, the Republican party being pro-life is nothing new, it's not like that is a radical departure from their normal stance or something :wink:
I thought that was a little tongue-in-cheek on your part. Are there candidates that have stated they believe in both demons and witches? (demons I can see a person believing in, I mean if one is a Christian, they can very much believe there are demons, witches that's another story).I posted it earlier.
Two ministries in the movement planned and orchestrated Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared onstage. The event was patterned after The Call, held at locations around the globe and led by Lou Engle, who has served in the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders of the NAR. Other NAR apostles endorsed Perry's event, including two who lead a 50-state "prayer warrior" network. Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2005, while praying for Jesus to protect her from the spirit of witchcraft, is also part of this movement.Even if they don't say they personally believe, guilty by association. If you sleep with dogs...
BTW Evo, the Republican party being pro-life is nothing new, it's not like that is a radical departure from their normal stance or something :wink:That's why I haven't been able to support those that push banning abortion, not all republicans make it a big deal.
Some people make it sound like abortion will be forced upon women, no, it's an option. If it's not an option a woman wants, then she doesn't have to consider it. I think child abuse is a worse option, IMO. I do not want to derail this thread however, nor do I want a side discussion of it. It's personal IMO.
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 11:17 PM
Even if they don't say they personally believe, guilty by association. If you sleep with dogs...
Remember Sarah Palin isn't a presidential candidate though, I can see the point about Rick Perry however. She might run, but that's a really big might. I find it really ironic that she was anointed by a Kenyan pastor though (!!!). So Barack Obama's father is from Kenya and Palin was anointed by a Kenyan pastor, that's a one of those coincidences that's a little too strange.
Remember Sarah Palin isn't a presidential candidate though, I can see the point about Rick Perry however. She might run, but that's a really big might. I find it really ironic that she was anointed by a Kenyan pastor though (!!!). So Barack Obama's father is from Kenya and Palin was anointed by a Kenyan pastor, that's a one of those coincidences that's a little too strange.But that same witch pastor is part of Perry's religious group.
CAC1001
Aug25-11, 11:26 PM
But that same witch pastor is part of Perry's religious group.
Yup, I said I see the point about Rick Perry though.
Ivan Seeking
Aug25-11, 11:32 PM
The Republican refusal to accept evolution I'd put right up there with many of the Democratic party views on issues of economics. Both parties cling to ideology on certain issues. There's a saying: You don't want Republicans in the bedroom, or Democrats in the boardroom.
Not the same argument. Differing views on economics is a legitimate point of contention. Not understanding the difference between that and faith-based arguments that deny scientific evidence, is a huge part of the problem. One is absolutely NOT the same as the other. One is a rational disagreement and the other is not.
Ivan Seeking
Aug25-11, 11:44 PM
I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.
I about fell out of my chair when I was first introduced to Obama on Meet the Press, in 2006. In fact, I can still remember my first thought immediately after the interview - "Damn! I wish this guy was white!!!".
I thought his color, [not to mention his name! :rofl: who woulda thought?!?!?!] was a deal breaker in practical terms; just another token black candidate. IIRC, at that time he hadn't announced that he would run but it was strongly rumored that he would. He was getting a lot of pressure.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 12:04 AM
I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make Bernanke guilty of treason. :biggrin:
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 12:22 AM
Not the same argument. Differing views on economics is a legitimate point of contention. Not understanding the difference between that and faith-based arguments that deny scientific evidence, is a huge part of the problem. One is absolutely NOT the same as the other. One is a rational disagreement and the other is not.
Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen. That said, I think the right adhere to some strictly ideological views regarding certain economic issues as well.
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 12:24 AM
You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make Bernanke guilty of treason. :biggrin:
Perry's Bernanke comment is a prime example of far-right ideology regarding economics.
ParticleGrl
Aug26-11, 12:49 AM
Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen.
Its important to realize that economics isn't really a science, its a social science. This is a big difference- making predictions can change behavior, can break the models, etc.
Further, lots of economics simply doesn't have much empirical support- what evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? Micro-economics is too "pure" to be easily empirically observable in the actual economic word (consider the Card-Krueger minimum wage study),and macro relies so much on expectations that something like the fed holding a press conference can change the empirical picture dramatically.
This can be contrasted with evolution or climate change (which is actual science) where the evidence is much less ambiguous, and easily replicable.
Its one thing to say "I don't believe raising the minimum wage will have much of an impact on unemployment"- there is legitimate empirical evidence to suggest this is true, and a micro-economics model to suggest this is false. Its another to say "I don't believe man is causing global warming"- here there is a causal mechanism that can be readily observed in a highschool science fair project,and there is tons of empirical evidence.
So that being said, in what areas are the democratic party's views on economics based on "pure ideology"? What mainstream economic areas do democrat's strong ideological beliefs blind them to? Also, what about the gold-bug republicans? Rick Perry has made derogatory comments about the fed, Ron Paul has crusaded for a gold-standard for years. These aren't mainstream positions!
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 12:51 AM
Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen. That said, I think the right adhere to some strictly ideological views regarding certain economic issues as well.
That point is, whether one economic theory or another is superior is debatable and dependent on the times. In my view, it is clear that the core conservative principle of deregulation is primarily what caused the economic collapse. The report showing this from the budget office, or maybe the GAO, has been posted before. So while there may be evidence that some liberal principles and policies have failed, there is certainly evidence of the same for conservative principles and policies.
Again, this is nothing like the distinction between faith-based arguments, and economic models, and not knowing the difference.
I would add that while we have been in a classic "liberal spending spree", it was started by one of the most iconic free marketeers of all time - Paulson. When people like Paulson are forced to adopt classically liberal policies, and when Bush nationalizes the two biggest banks in the country [technically a socialist action], one has to recognize that these are extraordinary times. We are still in crisis management mode. One can't judge Obama according to ordinary economic standards. You can be sure that he didn't want to inherit the worst economy since the great depression.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 01:06 AM
What is really scary about the tea party and people like Bachmann is that they would destroy the economy based on faith and ideology. They opposed the bailout when indeed the future of the global economy was at stake, and Bachmann's recent fiasco with the debt ceiling shows that she is also irrational. What she proposed was absolute nonsense and S&P agreed. She even denied their own reasoning for what they did!
Again, when people like Paulson break ranks and the Republicans start nationalizing banks, it is pretty clear that ideology has to go out the window. This is math problem, not one of philosophy.
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 01:08 AM
Its important to realize that economics isn't really a science, its a social science. This is a big difference- making predictions can change behavior, can break the models, etc.
Further, lots of economics simply doesn't have much empirical support- what evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? Micro-economics is too "pure" to be easily empirically observable in the actual economic word (consider the Card-Krueger minimum wage study),and macro relies so much on expectations that something like the fed holding a press conference can change the empirical picture dramatically.
Economics I'd say is definitely a science, but not a "hard" science in the way say physics or chemistry is. But it still has theories and hypotheses. It's a social science as you say, and you can't test it in the way you can other sciences, but it is still a science. You can present hypotheses and theories and then put them to the test to see if they work or not. By contrast, some "hard" sciences cannot be tested in a laboratory, such as astronomy or even much of climate science.
This can be contrasted with evolution or climate change (which is actual science) where the evidence is much less ambiguous, and easily replicable.
I don't know if evolution is replicable so much as there is just a lot of evidence for it and there really is no alternative explanation. But no one has really actually seen it happen, at least not on a large scale. Climate change, the evidence I think is much more questionable and not easily replicable either. As said, we can't really conduct experiments with climate change.
Its one thing to say "I don't believe raising the minimum wage will have much of an impact on unemployment"- there is legitimate empirical evidence to suggest this is true, and a micro-economics model to suggest this is false.
Well it depends. Raising the minimum wage too high will raise unemployment by simple supply and demand, as it's a price control. You raise the price on something higher than what it should be and you will end up with a surplus. It isn't completely cut and dry, just as the price of gas can go up, it doesn't mean the demand automatically drops off, but after a certain point, people begin to change their behavior significantly.
Its another to say "I don't believe man is causing global warming"- here there is a causal mechanism that can be readily observed in a highschool science fair project,and there is tons of empirical evidence.
The global climate is a lot more complex than a science fair project though, and the empirical evidence issue is controversial as well. There's also a problem with politics in it, as any university or scientist that doesn't adhere to the line of man-made climate change runs a serious risk to their career and ability to get grant money.
For example, the Sun influences the climate as well; CERN recently concluded in an experiment that climate models will need to be revised because of this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/ .
So that being said, in what areas are the democratic party's views on economics based on "pure ideology"? What mainstream economic areas do democrat's strong ideological beliefs blind them to?
Bigger government is always the solution, government is very competent, restraining free trade preserves jobs, belief in a living wage, blind faith in massive fiscal stimulus, a large social welfare state to fix poverty problems (without which the claim is poverty will skyrocket), etc...there are some others I am just not remembering them.
One can make arguments for all or most of the above, but too many on the Left have a blind adherence to them not based on really understanding the issues.
Also, what about the gold-bug republicans? Rick Perry has made derogatory comments about the fed, Ron Paul has crusaded for a gold-standard for years. These aren't mainstream positions!
I agree 100% here, hence my comment above on the Right adhering to some views on economics based much more so out of ideology as well. Other such right-wing views are: all taxes bad, all government bad, smaller government is always the answer, government cannot do anything right, etc...
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 01:22 AM
That point is, whether one economic theory or another is superior is debatable and dependent on the times. In my view, it is clear that the core conservative principle of deregulation is primarily what caused the economic collapse. The report showing this from the budget office, or maybe the GAO, has been posted before. So while there may be evidence that some liberal principles and policies have failed, there is certainly evidence of the same for conservative principles and policies.
It's more complex than that, too little government in certain areas, too much in other areas. For example, one of the most unregulated portions of the financial system, the private equity funds and the hedge funds, did not contribute to bringing down the system. Between 2000 and 2009, thousands of such funds failed. None got a bailout. It was the highly-regulated investment banks that nearly brought the system down in that sense, and that was because they were not behaving like free-market institutions. They took on massive risk under the assumption the government would bail them out (which just incentives even more recklessness).
You had the ratings agencies which rated securities triple-A that shouldn't have been, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which George W. Bush tried to subject to greater regulations (this after he signed the Sarbannes-Oxley regulations, which were a response to the scandals that occurred at Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, etc...Enron in particular operating in a very regulated industry), there was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low, etc...it is more complex than simply too little or too much regulation.
Again, this is nothing like the distinction between faith-based arguments, and economic models, and not knowing the difference.
Not when the Left are not arguing via differing economic models, but simply out of ideology. Just because there is an economic model to support one's position doesn't mean one is arguing based on that model.
I would add that while we have been in a classic "liberal spending spree", it was started by one of the most iconic free marketeers of all time - Paulson. When people like Paulson are forced to adopt classically liberal policies, and when Bush nationalizes the two biggest banks in the country [technically a socialist action], one has to recognize that these are extraordinary times. We are still in crisis management mode. One can't judge Obama according to ordinary economic standards. You can be sure that he didn't want to inherit the worst economy since the great depression.
I'd say we can judge him somewhat by how he and the Democrats pushed through a massive stimulus in a manner where they acted as if there was no question that was what needed to be done, when it was extremely questionable, and how he has likely hamstrung the economy with regulatory uncertainty via Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, his pushing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and so forth.
ThomasT
Aug26-11, 06:30 AM
@ NeoDevin
I agree with Dawkins' and your comments. Lack of understanding of basic science is definitely a 'deal breaker' for me, although I don't think I'd characterize it as signifying a "fundamental disconnect from reality" insofar as it's a social norm wrt many (most?) communities in the US.
It's a pleasure to read the learned and eloquent expositions of people of Dawkins ilk, as opposed to the pronouncements of people like Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc.
Whether Perry is a 'true believer' is anybody's guess. If he isn't, then he's just a typical pandering politician who will deliberately misrepresent pretty much anything if he deems it to be in his best interest to do so. If he is, then he's just willfully ignorant (ie., advocating and adhering to the dictates of theistic religion). Unfortunately, US politics, insofar as it's dealing with a largely apathetic and/or willfully ignorant population, apparently only allows those two alternatives (either a Christian or lying about it), as proclaiming disbelief wrt the dominant theistic religion of the society is assumed to be 'political suicide'.
I agree with the suggestion that people like Perry, GW Bush, Bachmann, Reagan, and their ilk, become politically prominent because the US political process and the viability of a candidate is largely based on something other than reasonable and critical vetting of ideas, positions and policies.
Getting back to the OP, I have a problem supporting anyone who would disregard well established science and/or evidence in favor of their own blind and/or unscientific religion and/or ideology.
I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.Me, too. And I was quoted out of context, insulted and called a liar by someone on this forum that should know better, just for saying that I was leaning toward McCain.
Clinton carried a lot of baggage and Obama was not well-known, so my wife and I were leaning toward McCain until he glommed onto Palin. I was still fence-sitting when Katy Couric "ambushed" Palin with really difficult questions like "what periodicals do you read?" That is so sad.
I would add that while we have been in a classic "liberal spending spree", it was started by one of the most iconic free marketeers of all time - Paulson. When people like Paulson are forced to adopt classically liberal policies, and when Bush nationalizes the two biggest banks in the country [technically a socialist action], one has to recognize that these are extraordinary times. We are still in crisis management mode. One can't judge Obama according to ordinary economic standards. You can be sure that he didn't want to inherit the worst economy since the great depression.
If Obama wasn't up to the task (ethics classes would have taught him) he should have disclosed his lack of knowledge - or he could have dropped out of the race. Instead, he and Biden claimed to have all of the answers.
Remember this?
http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/
"The Obama-Biden Plan
Our country faces its most serious economic crisis since the great depression. Working families, who saw their incomes decline by $2,000 in the economic "expansion" from 2000 to 2007, now face even deeper income losses. Retirement savings accounts have lost $2 trillion. Markets have fallen 40% in less than a year. Millions of homeowners who played by the rules can't meet their mortgage payments and face foreclosure as the value of their homes have plummeted. With credit markets nearly frozen, businesses large and small cannot access the credit they need to meet payroll and create jobs.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a plan to revitalize the economy.
Immediate Action to Create Good Jobs in America
Immediate Relief for Struggling Families
Direct, Immediate Assistance for Homeowners, Not a Bailout for Irresponsible Mortgage Lenders
A Rapid, Aggressive Response to Our Financial Crisis, Using All the Tools We Have"
Now in 2011 - 3 years later - we're waiting for President Obama to take a break from his busy campaign-like bus tour and vacation on Martha's Vineyard. It's been reported that he's visited at the home of the CEO of Comcast (NBC/MSNBC). The President has promised to provide his big recovery plan after Labor Day. The speculation among reporters is there are lot's of speeches planned so we all understand "the plan". That tells me he's going to try to push another massive spending Bill designed to force the House Republicans into a box - more of the same and say anything to get elected - IMO of course.
Proton Soup
Aug26-11, 08:54 AM
Are you sure Dawkins doesn't know that? That Perry might be doing that makes him equally poor a choice IMO.
in which case the man lacks integrity and is a hypocrite
ParticleGrl
Aug26-11, 10:23 AM
You can present hypotheses and theories and then put them to the test to see if they work or not.
So, again, I'll ask what empirical evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? It is (after all) foundational to economics.
I don't know if evolution is replicable so much as there is just a lot of evidence for it and there really is no alternative explanation.
You never did a fruit-fly lab in a genetics class? I did in both highschool and college.
Climate change, the evidence I think is much more questionable and not easily replicable either.
Thats just nonsense. Take several fish tanks (or other clear container), put infrared thermometers in them and fill the boxes with different concentrations of CO2. Now use a a strong incandescent bulb to warm the tanks. Flip the light off, and watch the temperatures as the different tanks cool.
This is easily done at the highschool science fair level, and it verifies the central claim of climate change- CO2 traps heat. Everything else in the "debate" is just piddling details. Is there any experiment half as clean that you can do for economics?
Bigger government is always the solution, government is very competent
Both of these are right-wing parodies of democratic positions- not actual positions.
Other such right-wing views are: all taxes bad, all government bad, smaller government is always the answer, government cannot do anything right, etc...
There was a time when I would have said these are left wing parodies of right-wing views. Unfortunately the party has shifted so far into crazy that the candidates sign pledges to the effect of all taxes are bad...
in which case the man lacks integrity and is a hypocrite
Yeah, I saw Ivan's post only after I replied. It was minutes apart.
Proton Soup
Aug26-11, 11:00 AM
Yeah, I saw Ivan's post only after I replied. It was minutes apart.
wait, are we talking about dawkins or perry? :wink:
NeoDevin
Aug26-11, 01:21 PM
While the Democratic party has their share of reality deniers as well (more in the alt-med/new age camp, rather than the Christian camp, from my observation), it's not endemic like it is in the Republican Party. A Democrat can get elected while espousing significant non-scientific views (whether they actually believe them or are just pandering). A Republican (almost) can't get elected unless they are espousing significant non-scientific views (again, irrelevant of their actual belief in such topics).
mheslep
Aug26-11, 05:09 PM
...
Even if they don't say they personally believe, guilty by association. If you sleep with dogs...A new PWA guideline?
A new PWA guideline?what?
mheslep
Aug26-11, 05:18 PM
what?
A new Politics & World Affairs guideline, now accepts guilt by association arguments.
A new Politics & World Affairs guideline, now accepts guilt by association arguments.LOL. Those people I linked to in the article are part of Perry's current religious group. Someone said that maybe he was just pretending to be religious to dupe people for votes (which makes him even worse, IMO). He currently chooses to associate with these people, regardless of whether he might be insincere, he is still associating with these people. Nice try though if you are referring to your attempt to slander a journalist because he hadn't always been a journalist. The guy reported accurately in Forbes magazine. That's acceptable. There is nothing similar here.
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 05:46 PM
So, again, I'll ask what empirical evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? It is (after all) foundational to economics.
Various businesses and firms in the economy? You invest more, you can get greater returns, but as you invest more and more, those returns become less and less. For example a company spending money to market their product. After a certain point, the curve representing the people receiving the marketing goes upwards. The company would have to hire people to go out and hunt down every hermit living in the backwoods of Kentucky to tell them about their product.
You never did a fruit-fly lab in a genetics class? I did in both highschool and college.
Not in college, no, in highschool, I might have, it was a while ago though.
Thats just nonsense. Take several fish tanks (or other clear container), put infrared thermometers in them and fill the boxes with different concentrations of CO2. Now use a a strong incandescent bulb to warm the tanks. Flip the light off, and watch the temperatures as the different tanks cool.
This is easily done at the highschool science fair level, and it verifies the central claim of climate change- CO2 traps heat.
I don't think anyone disputes that CO2 traps heat, the questions regarding climate change are more:
1) Is the climate actually changing by any really noticeable amount?
2) If it is, are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere the primary cause, part of the cause, or having no effect whatsoever right now?
3) What effect does the Sun have on the climate?
Remember also that the climate doesn't stay fixed, it has changed a lot through history. We cannot replicate in a lab the effects of releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere because it is just too complex.
Everything else in the "debate" is just piddling details. Is there any experiment half as clean that you can do for economics?
The CO2 experiment is only "clean" in that you're really simplifying it, testing if increased CO2 in a box traps heat. The atmosphere is far more complex. It's like to test for inflation, we have a "money supply" consisting of ten dollars and an "economy" consisting of ten apples. double the money supply and does inflation occur? Yes, now you have $20, so $2 for each apple. But does increasing the money supply in an economy automatically create inflation? Not necessarilly, because an actual economy is far more complex.
Both of these are right-wing parodies of democratic positions- not actual positions.
Maybe not all Democrats, but it seems to be the position of the current and past Democratic party that is in office, for example in how they saw the solution to poverty as lots of government programs. The current Democratic party, their solution to the economy? Massive stimulus spending. The solution to healthcare? Government (preferably a single-payer system, which ignores the fact that a universal healthcare need not be a government-run system). Their solution to the financial system? Massive regulation. Their solution to global warming? More regulations.
There was a time when I would have said these are left wing parodies of right-wing views. Unfortunately the party has shifted so far into crazy that the candidates sign pledges to the effect of all taxes are bad...
Republicans will not sign on to any promises of spending cuts with tax increases because they've done that in the past and gotten shafted. Both parties IMO have gone out there. The Republican party is just getting attention right now because it is the only party holding primaries. I remember back when Barack Obama was running in the Democratic primary and it seemed to be a contest of who could be the furthest to the left. With the Republican candidates, it's a contest of who can be the furthest to the right at the moment.
The current Democratic party answers to the labor unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, and as such, it is difficult for them to do good policy because those constituencies are so far to the Left.
Discussions of climate change are banned as they lead to flame wars.
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 05:50 PM
While the Democratic party has their share of reality deniers as well (more in the alt-med/new age camp, rather than the Christian camp, from my observation), it's not endemic like it is in the Republican Party. A Democrat can get elected while espousing significant non-scientific views (whether they actually believe them or are just pandering). A Republican (almost) can't get elected unless they are espousing significant non-scientific views (again, irrelevant of their actual belief in such topics).
Which un-scientific views must Republicans espouse, other than denial of evolution?
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 05:54 PM
Discussions of climate change are banned as they lead to flame wars.
I am not arguing for or against it, just explaining why I think it is too complex to be replicated in a lab.
LOL. Those people I linked to in the article are part of Perry's current religious group. Someone said that maybe he was just pretending to be religious to dupe people for votes (which makes him even worse, IMO). He currently chooses to associate with these people, regardless of whether he might be insincere, he is still associating with these people. Nice try though if you are referring to your attempt to slander a journalist because he hadn't always been a journalist. The guy reported accurately in Forbes magazine. That's acceptable. There is nothing similar here.
A politician associating with some very questionable people in order to advance his political career? Nothing new there, Barack Obama did that aplenty. I know you have said you don't/didn't like Obama, but I mean he's president and the world hasn't ended or anything. Not saying it justifies Perry doing it either, but that's politics for you.
A politician associating with some very questionable people in order to advance his political career? Nothing new there, Barack Obama did that aplenty. I know you have said you don't/didn't like Obama, but I mean he's president and the world hasn't ended or anything. Not saying it justifies Perry doing it either, but that's politics for you.But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue. The Governor of Kansas flew to Texas to pray with Perry a week ago. :surprised It's looking pretty bad.
mheslep
Aug26-11, 06:23 PM
...to slander a journalist because he hadn't always been a journalist...Questioning expertise is not slander. Slander requires false statements.
Questioning expertise is not slander. Slander requires false statements.Ok, disparage.
But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue. The Governor of Kansas flew to Texas to pray with Perry a week ago. :surprised It's looking pretty bad.
A little food for thought - nothing else.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-bible-burning-christians/2011/08/26/id/408824?s=al&promo_code=CEDB-1
"Iranian authorities began to systematically seize and destroy Bibles after a Shiite cleric issued an urgent warning about the spread of Christianity."
A little food for thought - nothing else.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-bible-burning-christians/2011/08/26/id/408824?s=al&promo_code=CEDB-1
"Iranian authorities began to systematically seize and destroy Bibles after a Shiite cleric issued an urgent warning about the spread of Christianity."Was Rick Perry behind this? Otherwise, I don't know what connection that has to this thread. :confused:
ParticleGrl
Aug26-11, 06:29 PM
Various businesses and firms in the economy?
Name one? Crack a micro-econ book, and see how many examples they give for real world supply curves.
The CO2 experiment is only "clean" in that you're really simplifying it, testing if increased CO2 in a box traps heat. The atmosphere is far more complex.
Lets avoid specifically discussing global warming (feel free to message me), but keep this in the context of science. Science works by reducing, testing and modeling. The idea is that, yes, things are really complex, so lets isolate the pieces, test them in a controlled environment, and generalize.
Lets turn to your inflation experiment
It's like to test for inflation, we have a "money supply" consisting of ten dollars and an "economy" consisting of ten apples. double the money supply and does inflation occur? Yes, now you have $20, so $2 for each apple. But does increasing the money supply in an economy automatically create inflation? Not necessarily, because an actual economy is far more complex.
You didn't flesh out an actual experiment here. Put money on a table, and apples on a table and nothing happens. You left out the people.
Now, lets say we have 10 people and 10 apples, and everyone has $1, and everyone wants an apple. I imagine the apples will go for $1 each, though I haven't run the experiment.
Now, lets double the supply of money by giving every person $1 more. What is the price of the apples? Probably $2.
Now, lets double the supply of money by giving all $10 to the apple seller. What is the price of the apples? Probably $1
Now, this isn't a real experiment, its a thought experiment (also known as a model). But we did learn something from the model- doubling the supply of money can do different things depending on what you do. By adding a few more layers of complexity, you could probably get a lot of insight out of your apples and dollars game.
What is most interesting is that if you actually run these toy experiments in a lab by playing a game with people, MOST TOY ECONOMIES DON'T FOLLOW STANDARD ECONOMICS PREDICTIONS. See the work of psychologists like Kahneman. People are irrational in predictable ways.
their solution to the economy? Massive stimulus spending.
Actually, it hasn't been massive stimulus, its been paralyzed inaction (which I fault them for, tremendously). Government has been shedding jobs throughout the crisis.
The solution to healthcare? Government (preferably a single-payer system, which ignores the fact that a universal healthcare need not be a government-run system).
The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run. There is no public option. Its a regulated public market. You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?
Their solution to the financial system? Massive regulation.
Actually, Dodd-Frank requires large banks to make plans to unwind banks if they become illiquid. This is to avoid the "too-big too-fail" situation and reduce the need for massive bailouts. The idea being to remove the "big government" induced moral hazard.
Keep in mind that democratic presidents have seen just as much deregulation as republican presidents (Carter lifted the brewing regulations and touched off the microbrew growth in the US, Clinton massively deregulated finance and passed free trade agreements, etc).
Their solution to global warming? More regulations.
Cap and trade (which was the republican solution to global warming in the 90s, actually) is not massive government regulation- its market based. You set a cap, and let the private sector figure out how to come in under the cap. The idea is to avoid complicated micro-managed industry-by-industry regulations.
I would argue the democrat position currently is that "there are sometimes problems that government can solve better than the private sector" and "market failures require the need for some regulations, but its usually best to construct those regulations in a market-oriented way." Its a very centrist party. Its weird but true that 90s Gingrich would be a democrat today (thought 2011 Gingrich has pulled way right).
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 07:01 PM
But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue.
It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public. Keep in mind, Wright had traveled with Louis Farrakhan (a notorious racist) to meet Gaddaffi back in 1984. So he was a pretty questionable association.
That said, I am not disagreeing with your criticisms of Perry, just pointing out that I mean this kind of stuff in politics isn't new.
The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run. There is no public option. Its a regulated public market. You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?
Was it Newt's version or Nixon's version that required personal mandates enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS? As for the term "government run" - you can't be serious - or is there a slight difference between mandates and control of every aspect versus "run" that allows this comment?
It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public. Keep in mind, Wright had traveled with Louis Farrakhan (a notorious racist) to meet Gaddaffi back in 1984. So he was a pretty questionable association.
That said, I am not disagreeing with your criticisms of Perry, just pointing out that I mean this kind of stuff in politics isn't new.I'm not concerned about shenanigans in politics, I'm concerned about christian fundamentalists taking over our country. Very scary to think we might lose the separation of church and state this country was founded on and have a church run country.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 07:39 PM
It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public.
For the record, Obama resigned his membership after Wright held a press conference and went over the edge.
If you ever went back and watched the entire original Wright sermon, you would find that he never said "God damn America.". What he said was, "God damn American IF" we don't do the following...[humanitarian issues listed]. But the media always cut the clip for the desired effect.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 07:43 PM
If Obama wasn't up to the task (ethics classes would have taught him) he should have disclosed his lack of knowledge - or he could have dropped out of the race. Instead, he and Biden claimed to have all of the answers.
Now you are just posting ideological nonsense.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 07:47 PM
in which case the man lacks integrity and is a hypocrite
Dawkins isn't running for President or a leading candidate for the Republican party.
ParticleGrl
Aug26-11, 07:49 PM
Was it Newt's version or Nixon's version that required personal mandates enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS?
Both had mandates. Nixon's plan had a strict mandate for employers, while Newt has long supported the individual mandate in Obama's plan (read his book Real Change and the section on healthcare.)
Also, how massive an expansion of the IRS? 2%? 3%?
Now you are just posting ideological nonsense.
I supported my comment with then President-elect Obama's website.
This thread is about the problems with Rick Perry. Let's stay on topic.
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 07:53 PM
Name one? Crack a micro-econ book, and see how many examples they give for real world supply curves.
Mattel? (just throwing out a random name). Mattel engages in marketing programs for Barbie, but I mean after a certain point, spending more money results in very few additional people learning about Barbie.
Lets avoid specifically discussing global warming (feel free to message me), but keep this in the context of science. Science works by reducing, testing and modeling. The idea is that, yes, things are really complex, so lets isolate the pieces, test them in a controlled environment, and generalize.
Lets turn to your inflation experiment
You didn't flesh out an actual experiment here. Put money on a table, and apples on a table and nothing happens. You left out the people.
Now, lets say we have 10 people and 10 apples, and everyone has $1, and everyone wants an apple. I imagine the apples will go for $1 each, though I haven't run the experiment.
Now, lets double the supply of money by giving every person $1 more. What is the price of the apples? Probably $2.
Now, lets double the supply of money by giving all $10 to the apple seller. What is the price of the apples? Probably $1
Now, this isn't a real experiment, its a thought experiment (also known as a model). But we did learn something from the model- doubling the supply of money can do different things depending on what you do. By adding a few more layers of complexity, you could probably get a lot of insight out of your apples and dollars game.
What is most interesting is that if you actually run these toy experiments in a lab by playing a game with people, MOST TOY ECONOMIES DON'T FOLLOW STANDARD ECONOMICS PREDICTIONS. See the work of psychologists like Kahneman. People are irrational in predictable ways.
That's what I am saying though, lab experiments for something like economics or the climate are not going to give accurate information about such complex systems.
Actually, it hasn't been massive stimulus, its been paralyzed inaction (which I fault them for, tremendously). Government has been shedding jobs throughout the crisis.
The government enacted a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, but that said, some prominent Democrats say the solution is that there hasn't been enough spending, and call for a lot more (such as Paul Krugman for example).
The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run.
A few points here:
1) The Republicans in the early-to-mid 1990s did have an alternative healthcare plan to Hillarycare that included a mandate to purchase health insurance. But this has never been an idea popular with conservatives or libertarians, it was a Republican party idea and a prime example of when Republican voters talk about how the Republican party leadership has too often deviated from what its principles are supposed to be. Quite a few Republicans were concerned about the existence of the mandate in the Republican plan at the time.
2) Richard Nixon was a member of the Republican party, but he is a man who created the EPA, was for universal healthcare, was for gun control, I mean he wasn't a standard conservative Republican.
3) The bill is not "officially" single-payer, but it is single-payer by proxy, because it puts the government in charge of the health insurance companies, so in a sense it is government-run. The health insurance companies gave up a lot of freedom in exchange for being subsidized. Also, Democrats have longed for a single-payer system for years, they only didn't try to outright nationalize the system because they saw doing so as too complex an operation. Barack Obama stated how he wanted to create a "Medicare for all" during the campaign.
There is no public option. Its a regulated public market.
There's a public option. People are required to either purchase health insurance, or else pay a fine (or tax). If they are too poor to do either, then they are subsidized.
You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?
:confused: No, the legislation they passed is their solution to healthcare.
Actually, Dodd-Frank requires large banks to make plans to unwind banks if they become illiquid. This is to avoid the "too-big too-fail" situation and reduce the need for massive bailouts. The idea being to remove the "big government" induced moral hazard.
That's the idea, but there are lots of regulations from the bill that thus far have yet to be written, and there are differing opinions on the bill (LINK1, (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/is-dodd-frank-overdue-or-overkill-2-dueling-views/) LINK2 (http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon1123ohlz.html))
Keep in mind that democratic presidents have seen just as much deregulation as republican presidents (Carter lifted the brewing regulations and touched off the microbrew growth in the US,
Yup, he also signed trucking and airlines deregulation. Some think that is partially what sank his presidency because of how the Democratic party saw it at the time.
Clinton massively deregulated finance and passed free trade agreements, etc).
He completed NAFTA (which had been started by Reagan) after being resistant to at first and signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, but this was with a Republican Congress, and the Democratic party did not like Clinton doing this from what I understand.
Cap and trade (which was the republican solution to global warming in the 90s, actually) is not massive government regulation- its market based. You set a cap, and let the private sector figure out how to come in under the cap. The idea is to avoid complicated micro-managed industry-by-industry regulations.
Yes, cap-and-trade is a market-based solution that was conjured up by Republicans, and one that worked fine from my understanding with regards to pollutants such as sulfure dioxide and carbon monoxide and so forth from coal plants. But that's because the technology exists to filter those pollutants out of the carbon emissions. But with regards to the carbon dioxide emissions themselves, there is no way to "filter" or capture those. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less coal, which means raising the cost of energy or switching to alternatives. If legitimate alternative sources existed that could be implemented quickly, that might work, but they don't. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc...none are viable alternatives right now. So because of this, cap-and-trade would act as a tax on the economy.
Since the administration couldn't get cap-and-trade through the Congress though, they are seeking to regulate carbon directly through the EPA, which is going to be very difficult for industry.
I would argue the democrat position currently is that "there are sometimes problems that government can solve better than the private sector" and "market failures require the need for some regulations, but its usually best to construct those regulations in a market-oriented way." Its a very centrist party.
Well some Democrats, the kind I like, are like that, but much of the party is a lot more leftwing than that.
Its weird but true that 90s Gingrich would be a democrat today (thought 2011 Gingrich has pulled way right).
In some ways, he would've been.
Ivan Seeking
Aug26-11, 07:54 PM
I supported my comment with then President-elect Obama's website.
I was talking about your commentary.
No, the economy has not recovered as much as we had hoped. We did avoid a total collapse and a it seems the dreaded double dip. I call that a huge success given the mess he was handed by the Republicans. That we were spiralling out of control when Obama took over is undeniable. As far as I'm concerned, you are just shifting blame and ignoring the facts. The Republicans and conservative principles caused this mess. Don't blame Obama if he can't fix the worst economy since the depression, in three years. It took the Republicans and Clinton twelve years to create the housing crisis. And as you know, I put Reaganomics at the heart of the debt problem. Our debt problem can be traced back directly to the Reagan Admin.
No more off topic posts. Let's discuss the topic of Rick Perry's religious affiliations and beliefs. Is someone like Perry a danger to the US? Can he bring anything of value to the presidency, or is he a pawn of organized religion?
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 07:55 PM
I'm not concerned about shenanigans in politics, I'm concerned about christian fundamentalists taking over our country. Very scary to think we might lose the separation of church and state this country was founded on and have a church run country.
Christian fundamentalists can't take over the country, or they'd have a really hard time doing so. Remember, we have a House, a Senate, and a Presidency, along with a Supreme Court. And separation of church and state is in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...").
Both had mandates. Nixon's plan had a strict mandate for employers, while Newt has long supported the individual mandate in Obama's plan (read his book Real Change and the section on healthcare.)
Also, how massive an expansion of the IRS? 2%? 3%?
I suppose it's fair to question 2% or 3% (do you have a source?) - it's doubtful anyone knows the real cost?
As you've described - neither plan (Newt or Nixon) proposed the personal mandate enforced by the IRS - correct? If you disagree - why not post specific support?
*******
I was looking for something else and stumbled back into this story regarding projected costs to business.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/healthcare-costs-business-taxes/2010/03/31/id/354413
"Obamacare's Prescription for Disaster: $14 Billion Cost to Industry"
*****
Perhaps a little more relevant to this thread is Perry's assessment of the costs to Texas - my bold.
http://focusdailynews.com/statement-by-gov-rick-perry-on-federal-appeals-court-ruling-on-obamacare-p4543-1.htm
"Texas and 25 other states have challenged the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. This administration continues to spend excessively and impose unfunded mandates upon the states, including this federal health care reform bill that will cost Texas taxpayers more than $27 billion over 10 years for the Medicaid expansion starting in 2014."
It seems Perry is being vetted thoroughly on the issue of religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085641-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"
But again, the longer the left and the media beat this issue into the ground - and the rhetoric of extreme politics (left and right) are the drum beat - and President Obama pushes more spending - if Romney keeps it low key, straight down the middle and maintains the drumbeat of Obama is inexperienced and in over his head - Romney will waltz into the White House as the reasonable and experienced moderate (IMO).
It seems Perry is being vetted thoroughly on the issue of religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085641-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"
But again, the longer the left and the media beat this issue into the ground - and the rhetoric of extreme politics (left and right) are the drum beat - and President Obama pushes more spending - if Romney keeps it low key, straight down the middle and maintains the drumbeat of Obama is inexperienced and in over his head - Romney will waltz into the White House as the reasonable and experienced moderate (IMO).Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs. If Perry has been attending church with a pastor that has controversial views, will the Democrats claim that the pastor is his "Spritual Advisor"? The GOP hauled that one out against Obama, but I don't see the Dems pulling that crap on Perry They should be quite willing to address his willful ignorance and populist anti-intelluctualism, though. Dawkins is right, IMO, about the right's embrace of dumbed-down candidates. Our leaders should be the best of the brightest, not the people who can scuff their feet in the dirt and say "aw shucks" like the guy next door.
I'd like to strip all of the affiliations away from the candidates and have them all answer the same questions on government, science, and academics. I can think up a great quiz. Of course the winner will be feared by those that can't figure out the answers to the quiz. :frown:
There is no hope for this country.
I'd like to strip all of the affiliations away from the candidates and have them all answer the same questions on government, science, and academics. I can think up a great quiz. Of course the winner will be feared by those that can't figure out the answers to the quiz. :frown:
There is no hope for this country.I'd like to propose this question: "What periodicals do you read?" When Katy asks a killer question, she doesn't fool around.
Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs. If Perry has been attending church with a pastor that has controversial views, will the Democrats claim that the pastor is his "Spritual Advisor"? The GOP hauled that one out against Obama, but I don't see the Dems pulling that crap on Perry They should be quite willing to address his willful ignorance and populist anti-intelluctualism, though. Dawkins is right, IMO, about the right's embrace of dumbed-down candidates. Our leaders should be the best of the brightest, not the people who can scuff their feet in the dirt and say "aw shucks" like the guy next door.
So the Governor of one of the most (the most?) successful states the last few years isn't a good qualifier? A better president is someone with no executive experience and limited legislative experience?
Nearly all of the indictments that have been made against "Perry and the GOP" in this thread have been basically arguements reduced to the absurd or basic anti-religious sentiment. No real empirical evidence of their policy wrongdoings, due to their beliefs, has been demonstrated (despite Perry having years under his belt as a governor). The policy implications of their religious beliefs are minimal, esspecially when the major issues are economic currently. Even though I am not religious in the least, I would still prefer a religious candidate with a proven executive record (esspecially in the current economic crisis) than an inexperienced aethiest.
I echo CAC1001's sentiment that the actual moralistic policy implications of even the most socially conservative President would be minimal because of the checks and balances that exist in our government. The major campaigns against 43 in 2000 and 2004 was his extreme anti-abortion policies that he would destroy women with. What did he do to restrict abortions? What abortion restrictions even became fruit in his terms? (Partial-birth ban had support from all but the most extreme abortion activists) I think the abortion arguement is tired and has limited policy implications. It will take overturning Roe v Wade for a president to ban abortion or significant limit their availability. In my mind the abortion arguements, from both sides, are really just to rile their base without any implication on a national policy level.
I think it's also important to note that not all policy decisions are scientific - the relationships that exist in a church setting instill a certain sense of community that I can see the benefit of. I'd rather have the accountability to our President be churchgoers as opposed to the unions and other corrupt special interests. Is a GOP candidate going to make a mandate that all states legalize gay marriage? Absolutely not, but... neither has the 'gay friendly' President Obama. Again, what anti-gay policies did President Bush oversee? Remember that the 'gay' policies (DOMA & DADT) that President Obama overturned via (possibly non-constitutional) non-enforcement rules were Clinton-era policies. So I argue, again, a non-issue (or incredibly overblown) from a policy standpoint.
So, what does matter from a policy standpoint? Actual executive experience, not some ideology that gets overblown. I think that this has been the biggest fault of President Obama, he's been frozen by indecision because (as Romney says) he's in over his head.
Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs.
Assuming your statement is correct - then Perry will be the first to be vetted for his religious views as evidenced by this CBS article I posted?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...41-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 10:51 PM
One thing on evolution, Christians will never accept evolution because it completely undermines the core of their belief system. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, original sin being a condition that taints all of humanity and according to Christians is why humans are so violent and, well, sinful (this is the explanation for why a world God created that was meant to be perfect, is instead very violent). Because Jesus is sinless and divine, we have to go through him to reach God. But evolution completely takes Adam and Eve out of the equation, which means there was no original sin, which means Jesus did not die (or did not need to die) to save humanity from original sin, and also that Jesus is not the sole path to God. It also means if there is a God, that it created a rather violent world, as opposed to a perfect world that Satan, the fallen angel, screwed up.
America is a nation emphasizing freedom of religion, so I don't mind if a presidential candidate, due to their religious beliefs, flat-out doesn't believe in evolution. What I mind is if they want to push their religious views onto others, or if they want to infringe on science just because it goes against their religion.
Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html
Perry wrong about use of executive orders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/08/21/rick-perry-clueless-on-executive-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/
Big Money bought him his 1998 victory
Per the Dallas Morning News: "In some quarters, he's seen as saving Perry's political career with a last-minute infusion of $1.1 million to fuel Perry's 1998 victory as lieutenant governor. Perry was in a tight race against Democrat John Sharp when Leininger guaranteed the $1.1 million loan to Perry's campaign. That allowed a $1 million advertizing blitz and helped him squeak out a victory."
Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html
Perry wrong about use of executive orders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/08/21/rick-perry-clueless-on-executive-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/
Big Money bought him his 1998 victory
Per the Dallas Morning News: "In some quarters, he's seen as saving Perry's political career with a last-minute infusion of $1.1 million to fuel Perry's 1998 victory as lieutenant governor. Perry was in a tight race against Democrat John Sharp when Leininger guaranteed the $1.1 million loan to Perry's campaign. That allowed a $1 million advertizing blitz and helped him squeak out a victory."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7474090-perry-to-huddle-with-donors-evangelical-supporters
I've got more, will post tomorrow, too tired tonight.
NeoDevin
Aug26-11, 10:54 PM
Which un-scientific views must Republicans espouse, other than denial of evolution?
Young earth creationism alone requires denial of: biology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and cosmology (and a whole lot of subtopics in each).
Strict biblical literalism, in addition to the above, requires a complete denial of basic history.
There are many denominations of Christianity that do not require the above denial of reality, but they are not the ones that appear prominent in the Republican party.
The push for abstinence only sex education is in complete denial of all evidence of what constitutes effective sex education. Further, abstinence only sex education actually significantly increases the frequency of abortion, which most Republicans claim to want to avoid. The best evidence says that comprehensive sex education greatly reduces teen pregnancy and therefore need/want for abortion. If the republicans were able to analyse evidence instead of sticking to their ideology, they would all be supporting comprehensive sex education for children.
Opposition to women's health clinics. This ties into above, in that if you make birth control harder to get, you end up with more unwanted pregnancies, and hence, more abortions.
Opposition to HPV vaccination in young girls is another example. Being vaccinated against HPV virtually eliminates the risk of cervical cancer, which would significantly save health care dollars (never mind lives). Yet many republicans oppose it because "it will promote promiscuity by taking away the fear of consequences for sex".
I'm sure there are more examples, but I've just finished working a 12 hour day, and am barely coherent anymore.
I think I've made my point though. Even on issues such as abortion, where I completely disagree with the Republicans, they are unable to use the best evidence to achieve their goals. Instead of actually working to reduce the incidence abortions, they would rather just ram their ideology down everyone's throat in the form of abstinence only sex education, while working to outlaw and defund women's health clinics, reducing the availability of birth control.
NeoDevin
Aug26-11, 10:57 PM
Christian fundamentalists can't take over the country, or they'd have a really hard time doing so. Remember, we have a House, a Senate, and a Presidency, along with a Supreme Court. And separation of church and state is in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...").
And yet the declaration of independence hasn't been changed back to the original wording yet...
Even on your money you have religion.
NeoDevin
Aug26-11, 11:01 PM
One thing on evolution, Christians will never accept evolution because it completely undermines the core of their belief system.
Many Christians already accept evolution. Such as Catholics, Unitarians, and many of the sub-denominations of other groups.
Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/578443-near-record-high-see-religion-losing-influence-in-america
"Seven in 10 Americans say religion is losing its influence on American life -- one of the highest such responses in Gallup's 53-year history of asking this question, and significantly higher than in the first half of the past decade."
CAC1001
Aug26-11, 11:33 PM
And yet the declaration of independence hasn't been changed back to the original wording yet...
Even on your money you have religion.
The Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution though, so it's saying people are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights isn't a law; it was the document outlining why the thirteen colonies were their own nation and could break from Great Britain. Neither is having God on money a law. It's a gray area in law (and I am no expert), but I mean if say a town say decides to put a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of the town hall, that doesn't necessarilly violate separation of church and state, because it is not a law based off of a religion and it doesn't prohibit anyone from practising their own religion.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.
Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html
What was he wrong about? The state doesn't mandate the teaching of creationism by it self specifically (which as the article states is against the establishment clause), but it says that other theories, besides evolution, are evaluated. Creationism, intelligent design, etc could be taught side by side at the teacher's discression. One thing about Gov. Perry's answer to the slave-child's* question is that he allows his state to choose, and the students in his state to make up their mind. If evolution is truely the end all be all (I buy into it fully, to stave off any personal attacks), then what is wrong with using it as an example to children about critical thought? If the state truely, impartially, taught creationism and evolution side by side - wouldn't a rational student be inclined to trust in the theory evolution? I think that is a microcasm for the blight in schools - we're far too willing to just lecture about what is 'right and accepted' at all costs that we forget there are
alternate theories out there. Students being able to discover the faults/benefits of a particular line of thinking can only strengthen their resolve and ability to reason.
Perry wrong about use of executive orders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/08/21/rick-perry-clueless-on-executive-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/
From the article: Like it or not, there is virtually nothing a president can do by executive order to overturn this legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the current President.
What did President Obama do regarding DOMA? That was a congressional bill, signed by the President at the time - and President Obama ordered the DOJ to just 'stop enforcing' it, effectively overturning the legislation. Why couldn't Gov. Perry do the same thing to the ACA?
Big Money bought him his 1998 victory
This is a negative for Gov. Perry, but not President Obama or any number of other politicians?
*I think that the situation that Gov. Perry was put in was in very poor taste. I'm suprised there's not more backlash about the adult feeding the child questions to ask the Gov.
ThomasT
Aug26-11, 11:44 PM
... I don't mind if a presidential candidate, due to their religious beliefs, flat-out doesn't believe in evolution.Ok, but the theme of the thread, ie. Dawkins' statement, is that you (everybody) should mind lest we, collectively, regress toward pre-Enlightenment modes of thinking and behavior.
I don't want elected officials, or anybody for that matter - but especially people in powerful positions whose decisions will affect the lives of millions, making decisions based on their emotional attachment to some religion or other.
What I mind is if they want to push their religious views onto others, or if they want to infringe on science just because it goes against their religion.We agree on this at least.
ThomasT
Aug26-11, 11:53 PM
Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.
As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 12:13 AM
The Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution though, so it's saying people are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights isn't a law; it was the document outlining why the thirteen colonies were their own nation and could break from Great Britain. Neither is having God on money a law. It's a gray area in law (and I am no expert), but I mean if say a town say decides to put a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of the town hall, that doesn't necessarilly violate separation of church and state, because it is not a law based off of a religion and it doesn't prohibit anyone from practising their own religion.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.
I meant to say pledge of allegiance. Sorry. I did mention I was half asleep.
I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.
That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years. Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.
For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone. The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truely rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.
Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?), a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.
Is it possible Dawkins might feel threatened by Perry's apparent popularity - does it seem to fly in the face of his findings?
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/578443-near-record-high-see-religion-losing-influence-in-america
"Seven in 10 Americans say religion is losing its influence on American life -- one of the highest such responses in Gallup's 53-year history of asking this question, and significantly higher than in the first half of the past decade."
Nah, Dawkins is internationally famous, Perry is relatively unknown.
I don't think so. Dawkins is contemptuous of Perry's, anybody's, theistic religious beliefs -- as we all should be, because these sorts of beliefs are manifestly, willfully ignorant.
As for the 'findings'. Well, these are Gallup Polls asking people what they think, so take them with a grain of salt.
Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science. Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?
As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?
Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?), a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.So, do you think that christian fundamentalist, evangelical, Intelligent Design and creationism should be a part of government decision at the Presidential, or any level of government? If yes, please explain why, and why you believe there is a benefit over rational, logical, realistic information.
Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science. Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?
As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?I would never equate the importance of being able to run this country to some local sports team. :surprised
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 12:26 AM
That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years.
'Old and persistent' does not equal 'useful'. It certainly doesn't equal 'correct'.
Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.
Asking people to have evidence supporting their beliefs is self-centered now? I could almost believe you're deliberately trying to parody the anti-reality position of many on the Christian right, if I hadn't met so many of them in person.
For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone.
How precisely are you defining "rationalistic principles" and how are they being forced on anyone? Does "rationalistic principles" mean requiring evidence before you waste time on far fetched claims? In that case, count me in!
The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truely rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.
You seem to have thrown a bunch of words together, but failed to organize them in any meaningful manner. Please consider rephrasing.
Pure rationalism is its own trouble (ever see the movie Equilibrium w/Christian Bale?),
Haven't seen the movie. But from the wiki synopsis, it doesn't sound terribly relevant.
a proper balance is what is needed - rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? (There I go again, being a 'rationalist'.)
So, do you think that christian fundamentalist, evangelical, Intelligent Design and creationism should be a part of government decision at the Presidential, or any level of government? If yes, please explain why, and why you beloieve there is a benefit over rational, logical, realistic information.
A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now. I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there. As it stands, there is no monetary reason to put a murderer in jail for life - it's generally cheaper to euthanize them. However, we as a society, have put an intrinsic value on that life and believe that many criminals can be rehabilitated - and believe that the benefits of the ones we do 'save' outweigh any potential other costs of the ones that fail.
Personally, I feel we're too soft on criminals - but the absolute iron fist is mitigated by the extra, non-rational, value we put on life.
Overall, I don't think there is much policy impact to having a president 'believe in creationism' - does it need to be part of a policy discussion? Probably not, except in the contexts that I've already explained. In that same note, what type of policy discussion would be involving evolution (not intrinsically about teaching/researching evolution, of course)? and ultimately - if we are talking about 'what to teach in schools' isn't the rationalistic train of thought to have a skeptical comparison to the accepted belief to reinforce that trust/belief?
I just don't see the doom/gloom that many in this thread see with respect to having a fundamentalist Christian president. We have plenty of checks, balances, and failsafes in place to prevent the take over of government in the manner predicted here (like they'd even try anyhow). I'd wager that even some of the 'extreme!' fundamentalist Christians that may be on the ticket in 2012 don't hold a candle in their beliefs to some past presidents. Electing them President doesn't instantly (or even in time) make this country a 'christian-law country' with crosses in every school and a mandatory prayer every morning like some are trying to make it seem.
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 01:11 AM
A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now. I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there. As it stands, there is no monetary reason to put a murderer in jail for life - it's generally cheaper to euthanize them. However, we as a society, have put an intrinsic value on that life and believe that many criminals can be rehabilitated - and believe that the benefits of the ones we do 'save' outweigh any potential other costs of the ones that fail.
It has been my observation that the Christian right is generally more in favor of the death penalty than either atheists or Democrats.
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 01:12 AM
Overall, I don't think there is much policy impact to having a president 'believe in creationism' - does it need to be part of a policy discussion? Probably not, except in the contexts that I've already explained. In that same note, what type of policy discussion would be involving evolution (not intrinsically about teaching/researching evolution, of course)? and ultimately - if we are talking about 'what to teach in schools' isn't the rationalistic train of thought to have a skeptical comparison to the accepted belief to reinforce that trust/belief?
There is a significant policy impact of having a president unable to rationally assess evidence.
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 01:26 AM
That line of thinking could be seen just as willfully ignorant, as you're willing to throw away thousands of years of human thought just because 'science told you so' in the span of 200 years. Imposing rationalistic beliefs is pretty self-centered, just in the same way that you're indicting faith beliefs.On the contrary, we've developed methods of inquiry and methods of processing the data acquired via those methods of inquiry which have been definitively demonstrated to get us closer to the truth than simply adhering to ancient religious doctrines. Today there are lots of 'moderate' Christians, Muslims,and Jews who hold beliefs based on the methods of inquiry and logic that took centuries to develop and which are often in conflict with a literal interpretation of the doctrines of their respective religions. Unfortunately, these 'moderates' might be even more dangerous than the fundamentalists, because the apparent 'rationality' of their positions tends to stifle discussion about whether it makes any sense to adhere to and advocate anything based on theistic doctrines rather than on rational inquiry and logic.
For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone.Unfortunately, nobody can be forced to think and behave rationally. But we can hope. Surely, as a physics undergrad, you can see why evaluating things wrt logical rather than theistic religious principles is to be preferred.
The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truely rational as there's a double standard being applied.No. There's a common standard -- empirical observation. And it's been shown that scientific and logical (ie., rational) methods more closely approximate ... reality, and statements in that language are less ambiguously communicated than statements in the language of theistic religions. Eg., I still have no idea what the word, "god", is supposed to refer to ... other than our ignorance.
That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.'Pure rationalism', 'absolutism', isn't the sort of rationalism we're talking about.
It's theistic religions, rather than science and rationality. that are peddling absolutes.
... rejecting religious beliefs at face value limits the draw from human experience ...No it doesn't. It simply entails evaluating religious beliefs wrt the same scientific and rational methods that you'd evaluate any beliefs. We don't want, say, bridges or skyscrapers to be designed based on some interpretation of a theistic religious text. Do we? If not, then why would we base any action or any statement about the world on some interpretation of a book written by who know's who, who knows when, about who know's what?
... and is just as dark of a path as being 100% theist IMO.I think that the scientific community might disagree with you.
'Old and persistent' does not equal 'useful'. It certainly doesn't equal 'correct'.
It doesn't automatically mean incorrect either. Can rationalism explain why stealing and murder is wrong? or should we be using historical examples to make both illegal?
Asking people to have evidence supporting their beliefs is self-centered now? I could almost believe you're deliberately trying to parody the anti-reality position of many on the Christian right, if I hadn't met so many of them in person.
You're applying a significantly increased value to your own observations, when compared to that of another - I'd call that self-centered. My point is: a rational individual should be thriving on the constant skepticism, not trying to play metaphysical games and denounce the individual as a whole.
Imposing a rationalistic paradigm on the single belief of an individual, then presuming that everything else they say/do is irrational is a pretty broad statement (And unprovable). There are plenty of irrational things that (even predominately 'rational') people do and believe.
How precisely are you defining "rationalistic principles" and how are they being forced on anyone? Does "rationalistic principles" mean requiring evidence before you waste time on far fetched claims? In that case, count me in!
You seem to have thrown a bunch of words together, but failed to organize them in any meaningful manner. Please consider rephrasing.
That's because you took my statements out of context.
For the record - I'm far from being a religious person, but imposing rationalistic principles on others is no better than a person of faith imposing their principles on someone. The failure to see that, IMO, is where the anti-religious, 'rational-based' sentiment fails to be truely rational as there's a double standard being applied. That's also where the sophistic disconnect is between pure rationalism and science - science can only prove repeatable observations, not absolutions like rationalism would like it to.
Simply: imposing a paradigm on another, in which you're indicting them for having an irrational paradigm (which includes imposing their own beliefs), is a double standard.
IMO, this is the line between rationalism being an appropriate, reliable scientific thought process and an evangelical belief system bent on shaping other's beliefs.
edit: I found this comic (http://abstrusegoose.com/31) which illustrates my point a bit.
Haven't seen the movie. But from the wiki synopsis, it doesn't sound terribly relevant.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? (There I go again, being a 'rationalist'.)
In the movie, people medicate themselves to remove emotion so they can act in a purely rational way. It's a distopian fiction, and is quite relevent. It's rationalism to the extreme (even cutting out the Orwellian 'state = god' theme).
Just look at when most societies had their golden ages: it was when secular rationalism and religious humanism met in a reasonable middle ground. Pax Romana, the Islamic Golden Age, and the European Rennassance for the most part are marked by the coming to a reactionary 'middle ground' and ended by one mindset mostly overcoming the other. I would wager that in most folk's mind, 'the good old days' image is innovative freedom coupled with personal morality.
It has been my observation that the Christian right is generally more in favor of the death penalty than either atheists or Democrats.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm
Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.
Also, I'd think that most leftists see the death penalty as being racist or some such - that's more their opposition to it than any rational line of thinking.
There is a significant policy impact of having a president unable to rationally assess evidence.
Again, one belief makes up an individual's entire paradigm? What about, in this case, Gov. Perry's record as governor? Where has he acted improperly because of his religious beliefs?
To take a page from Evo's arguement in the 'NH Libertarian State' thread where her claim was that NH does so well statistically because it lacks the immigrant, urban, and poor problem - Texas has arguebly some of the worst conditions to do well in using that line of thinking, but yet has done well economically.
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 02:21 AM
Personally, I think adults should be able to separate beliefs that are largely emotional from logic and science.But often they don't/can't, which is the problem with religious zealots like Bush, Perry, etc. (assuming they're on the level about their religious zealotry). These sorts are apparently taking theistic religious doctrine as truth, and this is based on accidents of birth and socialization.
Who hasn't rooted for a local or regional sports team that rarely wins - and even when there is absolutely zero evidence they might win? We root for them because of some other social element - don't we?You would seem to be agreeing that adherence to some sports team or some religion is largely a matter of socialization.
But logic and science transcend socialization. That is, these methods are common to all rational inquirers. So we should, I think, want elected officials, indeed all people, to be basing their policies and actions on logic and science rather than on theistic religious beliefs.
As for the poll results - isn't he hanging his hat on them - seems important to him?I don't think that the poll results will have any affect on Dawkins' assessment of theistic religions or people who advocate them. They're ignorant and they hinder the advancement of humankind.
There might always be a significant portion of the human race that finds comfort in such things as theistic religion, but I don't want people entrusted with making decisions that will affect the lives of millions to be basing those decisions on beliefs in ancient (or even more modern offshoots of) theistic religious doctrines.
DoggerDan
Aug27-11, 05:02 AM
What do you guys think?
I think you're more concerned about evolution, which has little to do with politics, than you are with respect to who is the best candidate for the position.
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 06:22 AM
I think you're more concerned about evolution, which has little to do with politics, than you are with respect to who is the best candidate for the position.Do you think that a basic science literacy and critical thinking are important skills for holders of public office to have? Is it ok that, say, the US president believes in an invisible Big Brother spirit in the sky with infinitely extendable human-like behavioral characteristics, and that creationism and intelligent design are scientific theories on a par and competing with the theory of evolution? Are these beliefs, and religious fundamentalism in general, and the apparent associated lack of science literacy and the inability or unwillingness to think critically, specific to Republican candidates or more prevalent wrt Republican candidates -- and if so might that be any sort of problem for the Republican party?
Imo, it does seem that the incidence of science illiteracy and the inability or unwillingness to think critically is higher wrt republican party candidates than others. But I don't think that this presents any problem for them. It's been demonstrated that there are enough voters in the US who lack basic science literacy and who are unable or unwilling to think critically that a candidate of that ilk, and who also might just happen to be a religious fundamentalist, can, using them as a base electorate, get elected to the presidency.
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 06:28 AM
Can rationalism explain why stealing and murder is wrong?Not by itself. But in conjunction with observation that's how we explain anything that we can explain. The theistic religious appeal to 'God's will' as an explanation isn't an explanation of anything. It's just some words that mean "we don't know".
So, yes, using observation and rational analysis we can explain why stealing and murder are considered wrong, why they're considered right in certain contexts, why there are theistic religions, why some people adhere to them and some people don't, and also why they're considered a bad thing by those who have no desire to revel in, or perpetuate, their ignorance.
When we evaluate any moral or esthetic consideration we're engaging in rational analysis.
Or, we can just do what God or Allah (or whatever) tells us to do via some book that we don't know who wrote, or when it was written, or why it was written. But we'll just take it at face value, because we're told that it was divinely inspired, that it's the word of God -- whatever that might mean. Is this the sort of behavior that you want to advocate? Are those who exhibit this sort of behavior, such as Perry, the sort of people that you want making decisions that will affect millions?
Maybe in general Perry will make more or less rational decisions about stuff. But (assuming he's a true believer) how do we know (if he were elected to the presidency) that he won't one day go off the deep end and push for something really seriously damaging and idiotic wrt any criterion other than that 'God told him to do it'?
<Disparaging remark deleted>
Wouldn't you rather have a society of people who understand the rationale underlying punitive laws against stealing and murder in terms of societal control and order rather than who simply accept it as a commandment of God or because of historical precedent?
There are plenty of irrational things that (even predominately 'rational') people do and believe.True, but we want to minimize that sort of behavior, not glorify it. Don't we? And wrt that I think it's important to speak out against the predominant monotheistic organized religions and people like Perry.
I would never equate the importance of being able to run this country to some local sports team. :surprised
:smile:I meant that people with common interests, backgrounds, or geographic location often tend to support a team or a cause with no real expectation of a positive result. They do it because of a sense of loyalty or belonging or some other group dynamic. They don't need proof that the team is the best, good or even able to win - it makes them feel good and gives them a sense of belonging.
From a political perspective - Perry clearly wants the Southern vote. I think he wants to equate Romney with Obama with Bush (comments about their respective education) as being cut from the same elitist cloth - and show himself to be the alternative.
Ivan Seeking
Aug27-11, 10:54 AM
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm
Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.
From your link
Generally speaking, liberal religious groups are abolitionist, while conservative faith groups are retentionist
So as always, the fundamentalists are the standouts.
Also, I'd think that most leftists see the death penalty as being racist or some such - that's more their opposition to it than any rational line of thinking.
What is irrational about it?
Again, one belief makes up an individual's entire paradigm? What about, in this case, Gov. Perry's record as governor? Where has he acted improperly because of his religious beliefs?
To take a page from Evo's arguement in the 'NH Libertarian State' thread where her claim was that NH does so well statistically because it lacks the immigrant, urban, and poor problem - Texas has arguebly some of the worst conditions to do well in using that line of thinking, but yet has done well economically.
The point made was in regards to his ability to interpret information rationally. Saying Bernanke is guilty of treason would be a good example of irrational thinking.
Perry just made another dangerous (IMO) flip flop.
Rick Perry has signed a pledge to back a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage — a reversal from a month ago when the Texas governor said he so supported individual states' rights that he was fine with New York's approval of same-sex marriage.
The pledge by the National Organization for Marriage states that, if elected, Perry will send a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification, and appoint U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution."continued...
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-161046437.html
People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary.
Astronuc
Aug27-11, 11:39 AM
Perry just made another dangerous (IMO) flip flop.
continued...
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-signs-pledge-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-161046437.html
People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary. That some folks would seek to use the law against (i.e., to harm) other members of society is more worrisome.
Ivan Seeking
Aug27-11, 11:42 AM
That some folks would seek to use the law against (i.e., to harm) other members of society is more worrisome.
It's a control issue. And they believe their children are being harmed.
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 12:18 PM
People that would try to make laws based on their religious beliefs is scary.
I agree. Thankfully the President has NO role in the amendment process. He cannot formally propose it to the congress, he need not sign it and may not veto it. 2/3 of both chambers and 2/3 of the states are required.
I am a libertarian who frequently votes republican. It is always on the basis of "lesser of two evils". As much as this rhetoric disturbs me, I don't think that the republic is in any danger of an Evangelical Takeover. It is primary season and they are competing for the base. The democrats did the same thing in 2008. It is in the nature of our system.
PS The body of our laws has its roots in religious beliefs. We may have freedom of religion but in a sense we have a state deity mentioned in the founding documents and pictured on our coins (for the first 150 years). The alternative is the existence of an objective moral order. But to be objective it must be agreed upon. Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? No agreement in sight.
Ivan Seeking
Aug27-11, 12:23 PM
As much as this rhetoric disturbs me, I don't think that the republic is in any danger of an Evangelical Takeover. It is primary season and they are competing for the base.
As a Libertarian, aren't you bothered fundamentally by the fact that his base would rather deny liberty than recognize State's rights? Aren't you sleeping with the enemy in the most profound sense?
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 12:50 PM
As a Libertarian, aren't you bothered fundamentally by the fact that his base would rather deny liberty than recognize State's rights? Aren't you sleeping with the enemy in the most profound sense?
Are Democrats bothered that their hard left base wants a state run green economy through draconian regulation, confiscatory taxation, open borders and the destruction of Israel? No, because it's campaign rhetoric and it's not going to happen.
Ivan Seeking
Aug27-11, 12:53 PM
Are Democrats bothered that their hard left base wants a state run green economy through draconian regulation, confiscatory taxation, open borders and the destruction of Israel?
Yes, and that's why the extremists aren't running the party. And that's the difference between the Dems and the Reps.
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 12:55 PM
Yes, and that's why the extremists aren't running the party. And that's the difference between the Dems and the Reps.
But Democratic candidates will court the votes of their extremists just like the Republicans.
Ivan Seeking
Aug27-11, 01:01 PM
But Democratic candidates will court the votes of their extremists just like the Republicans.
If I saw a Democratic candidate pandering the far left like these guys do the far right, I would never support them. No, a politician cannot talk nonsense for a year and then pretend it didn't happen. Pandering to the base is no excuse for wild flip flops or absurd points of view on highly substantive issues.
If Al Sharton or Louis Farrakhan were leading candidates for the left, I could agree. From my point of view, less Romney and Huntsman, that is a fair comparison to most of the Republican field.
Proton Soup
Aug27-11, 01:14 PM
Al Sharpton now has his own show on MSNBC. Sharpton is not a candidate, but he is the voice of the establishment.
If I saw a Democratic candidate pandering the far left like these guys do the far right, I would never support them. No, a politician cannot talk nonsense for a year and then pretend it didn't happen. Pandering to the base is no excuse for wild flip flops or absurd points of view on highly substantive issues.
Hold that thought my friend.:wink:
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 04:08 PM
If I saw a Democratic candidate pandering the far left like these guys do the far right, I would never support them. No, a politician cannot talk nonsense for a year and then pretend it didn't happen. Pandering to the base is no excuse for wild flip flops or absurd points of view on highly substantive issues.
If Al Sharton or Louis Farrakhan were leading candidates for the left, I could agree. From my point of view, less Romney and Huntsman, that is a fair comparison to most of the Republican field.
In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?
In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Hmmm, an evil dictator Christmas tree theme?
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 04:20 PM
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Hmmm, an evil dictator Christmas tree theme?
The 2009 White House Christmas Tree would qualify.
The 2009 White House Christmas Tree would qualify.
:confused:Not a clue?
I did however eat some swastika shaped Christmas cookies once - one of my (junior high) friends helped his elderly granny - she didn't realize what he was doing. When his mother saw the finished product - she couldn't serve them and let us eat the entire batch.
skippy1729
Aug27-11, 04:27 PM
:confused:Not a clue?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 04:35 PM
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm
Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.
Generally speaking, liberal religious groups are abolitionist, while conservative faith groups are retentionist.
Hence, my point stands. The Christian right (that would be, conservative faith groups) are retentionist.
Further:
Support for capital punishment among the general public is higher that one would expect from the positions of American religious groups. The membership of the various denominations appear to support capital punishment more than their own faith groups do.
Just because the religions claim to be opposed to it, doesn't mean the religious are.
(Both quotes from your link)
Also, I'd think that most leftists see the death penalty as being racist or some such - that's more their opposition to it than any rational line of thinking.
I've never heard the argument that the death penalty is inherently racist. Some have said that the implementation of it is. The arguments are usually "right to life" or "chance of mistake" type arguments.
Again, one belief makes up an individual's entire paradigm? What about, in this case, Gov. Perry's record as governor? Where has he acted improperly because of his religious beliefs?
One example, he favors the teaching of creationism in science class, crippling the scientific education of children. Note that he doesn't favor teaching in a critical way, so students can learn to recognize non-scientific ideas. Rather he favors teaching it as truth.
Edit: Should have finished reading before I replied. Ivan beat me to it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/
Now I remember - thanks for reminding us.
This piece addresses the Perry discussion somewhat.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/left_demagoging_perrys_religion.html
"Perry, like many Americans, relies on God as a moral compass."
I think there's a fine line for the Left and media to walk between challenging a candidates view of evolution and crossing over to become the far left (extreme) anti-God Party a la Bill Maher. I seriously doubt President Obama would ever want to run as the anti-God candidate.
Again, I think the longer this debate lasts with Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin - the less anyone will care that Romney is a Mormon - IMO - this helps Romney.
NeoDevin
Aug27-11, 04:59 PM
I seriously doubt President Obama would ever want to run as the anti-God candidate.
No, but he's already run as the anti-theocracy candidate:
LXcvbnzNIjg
OmCheeto
Aug27-11, 05:39 PM
No, but he's already run as the anti-theocracy candidate:
Thank god.
Thank god.Thank dog! Some of us creatures aren't all that judgmental.
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/newbed.jpg
OmCheeto
Aug27-11, 07:35 PM
I placed post-modern, too.
me three. :approve:
I think Dawkins is right on his assessment. I could never vote for any of the current crop of Republicans because I hold very liberal social values AND I think the Republican party thinks it's better to be simple than smart. When they change those two things, I'll take another look at them.
I don't really know that much about Dawkins nor Perry, but if the things I've read in this thread are true, then I have to side with Dawkins.
Oh and they have to accept my atheism, too :biggrin:.
No! You must accept a god into your heart! Otherwise you are doomed!
How about Pastafarianism? I don't think they have many rules.
And being a member of a religion increases the number of swear phrases at your disposal by at least a factor of 10.
Just imagine the following scene with no religious references:
a5R_pS0h5Qk
I don't think "Poopity...., poop..., poop..., poop..." would have been quite as dramatic.
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 09:33 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/Yeah, the Christmas decor thing is hilarious, although I'm not sure they meant it to be. Hedda Lettuce? Obama on Mount Rushmore? :rofl:
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 09:50 PM
Again, I think the longer this debate lasts with Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin - the less anyone will care that Romney is a Mormon - IMO - this helps Romney.This makes sense to me. But my guess is that it only pertains to people riding the fence. I doubt that the base that Perry is appealing, and appeals, to will be able to set aside the fact that Romney is a Morman.
Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".
ThomasT
Aug27-11, 11:48 PM
Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".Nice sentiments, which I basically agree with, but things have always been run by the rich and for the rich even though most of society isn't made up of the rich. I don't think it can be any other way as long as the vast majority of the population has little interest and takes no active part in the process except for maybe voting once in a while. As long as people pretty much only consider and vote for democrats or republicans, then the status quo won't change.
My main concern, wrt the topic of this thread, is that we don't get another fanatical apostle of Christ in the White House.
OmCheeto
Aug28-11, 12:14 AM
Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".
You forgot Norquist, and his contractual minions!
I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist, and to whatever for which he stands, one man, unelected, with liberty, and justice, for those of us who are more equal than others.
The list (http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf) that makes me seethe.....
You forgot Norquist, and his contractual minions!
The list (http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf) that makes me seethe.....At what point do we get Dems and Republicans signing pledges never to cut spending that is demanded by the controllers of both parties? It is ridiculous to pledge to NEVER increase revenue, and it is just as ridiculous to NEVER increase spending. The dancing and posing of both parties sickens me. Right now, the GOP holds the House and keeps the Congress in gridlock, I will not be one bit happier if the Democrats regain control (stranglehold). We need a functional government populated by rational humans. Can that ever happen again, absent a revolution of some sort? I don't mean an armed insurrection, but perhaps a refusal of citizens to cast party-line ballots or even to cast a vote in elections where the choice is between really bad and really bad, but with disclaimer?
Should there be a regulation forbidding party-line voting via checkbox? That should weed a quite a few of the idiots. I have a hard time equating the "right to vote" with the "necessity to vote" because so many people are driven by party and are not sufficiently informed.
I always thought that a person shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone unless they could succesfully answer a short questionaire about the candidate. I mean, you should know certain things about someone you're voting for, right?
Chronos
Aug28-11, 01:21 AM
A few basic questions remain
1. Is the human contribution to CO2 levels significant relative to natural contributions?
2. Is the economy better or worse compared to 2008?
3. Is hypocracy and duplicity the 'new deal' solution for the 21st century?
4. Will the US run out of paper to print enough money before becoming a third world economy?
Containment
Aug28-11, 01:22 AM
Yeah and they should also have to own land right evo :)
I really honestly don't care what the religious beliefs of the person who gets into office are as long as they realize that is just their personal beliefs and this is a country of 300 million not a nation of one. I would much rather have a christian in office that is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now then an atheist who is not ok with someone else believing in a god.
Ivan Seeking
Aug28-11, 01:40 AM
I think there's a fine line for the Left and media to walk between challenging a candidates view of evolution and crossing over to become the far left (extreme) anti-God Party a la Bill Maher. I seriously doubt President Obama would ever want to run as the anti-God candidate.
For me, if a person wants to take a leap of faith and believe that God has simply tricked all the scientists, that doesn't bother me so much. It is at least a faith based on a classic philosophical argument. That is quite a different thing than teaching faith as fact or as being on par with science. In short, I'm not bothered by a person who understands that they are making a leap of faith. What scares the hell out of me are the people who don't know the difference. Even as a ten-year-old Catholic school kid, I understood that I was making a leap of faith. Indeed, faith is the most elementary concept in religion.
This is what Obama was speaking to in the video above.
When the right wing scoffs at Obama's flowery speaches, I can only shake my head in disbelief and disgust. Indeed his words have depth and are of great significance today. Flowers, no. As we saw in his Egypt speech: Wise and significant, timely and targeted, profound and fundamental, yes.
Again, I think the longer this debate lasts with Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin - the less anyone will care that Romney is a Mormon - IMO - this helps Romney.
Good! But I never have been worried about these players - Perry through Palin - in the general election. What concerns me is that the Republican base has been driven so far to the right. Romney could pose a challenge to Obama, but I'm not sure he could be nominated by the GOP. He's too moderate. And in my view, he's not a moderate!!! He's a pretty typical big-business conservative.
As Reagan once said, their right hand doesn't know what their extreme right hand is doing.
I always thought that a person shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone unless they could succesfully answer a short questionaire about the candidate. I mean, you should know certain things about someone you're voting for, right?
Or at least take the party affiliations off of the ballots, which is a more realistic possibility. If a voter didn't even know a candidate's name before walking in the voting booth, then they shouldn't be voting for them.
Nebraska does this for their state senate elections and many other offices, as well. Party affiliation doesn't appear on the ballots until you reach state offices, such as governor, etc, and for federal offices, such as US Senator, US Represenatitive, US President, etc.
Nebraska's state senate runs on a non-partisan basis, as well (no majority/minority leaders, etc) and senate leaders are chosen by secret ballot, further reducing the impact of party organizations.
Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire!
Is he as wealthy as John Kerry? Doesn't President Obama remind us about twice per month that he too is a millionaire?
Good! But I never have been worried about these players - Perry through Palin - in the general election. What concerns me is that the Republican base has been driven so far to the right. Romney could pose a challenge to Obama, but I'm not sure he could be nominated by the GOP. He's too moderate. And in my view, he's not a moderate!!! He's a pretty typical big-business conservative.
As Reagan once said, their right hand doesn't know what their extreme right hand is doing.
I'm quite certain (in my state - rules prob vary elsewhere) there will be moderate Dems and Independents voting for Romney in the primaries.
OmCheeto
Aug28-11, 11:03 AM
Is he as wealthy as John Kerry? Doesn't President Obama remind us about twice per month that he too is a millionaire?
The difference being of course, that Obama points to himself, and claims he can afford to pay more taxes, while Perry and Romney, don't.
Om's Sunday bible interpretation::
It is written: Matthew 22:21" ...Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God"
What is not written; "Screw Caesar, keep your tax money. And that thing about the eye of the needle? I was just kidding. Now let's go party. Wine and pizza are on me."
Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.
I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?
Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.
I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?
What do you recommend they do?
What do you recommend they do?If taxation is "theft" and they hate the federal government, wouldn't it be reasonable to let them solve their states' own problems without burdening the rest of the US taxpayers?
If taxation is "theft" and they hate the federal government, wouldn't it be reasonable to let them solve their states' own problems without burdening the rest of the US taxpayers?
Do the (legal) citizens of Texas and New Jersey not pay taxes? Perhaps you'd prefer the Maine tax payers assume the responsibility for housing, feeding, and medical care of illegals?
Ivan Seeking
Aug28-11, 10:45 PM
Do the (legal) citizens of Texas and New Jersey not pay taxes? Perhaps you'd prefer the Maine tax payers assume the responsibility for housing, feeding, and medical care of illegals?
Aren't you just making the point that all of this big government fear mongering is silly? As you have noted, the Federal Government plays an important role. While the proper size of the Fed government is a legitimate point of debate, the tea party would have us believe it's the spawn of satan. We've had members here who all but want to abolish the Fed.
Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.
I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?
It's not the acceptance of money that's the devil, but the availability of it. Many states have adopted policies expecting government assistance, so when it becomes less available - they're stuck, creating a situation where a dependance is formed.
IMO, that's the real crux of the situation and the 'anti government' money arguement. What's the last substantive government program which has been discontinued (and not just renamed)?
Lets say that a poker buy in is $20. You get $30 total worth of chips if you put an extra $10 in. All you've done is up the ante, and you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't put that extra $10 in. This is similar to the choice states make, many states don't want to up the ante, but they're forced to because of the available 'extra buy in'.
Ivan Seeking
Aug28-11, 11:04 PM
It's not the acceptance of money that's the devil, but the availability of it. Many states have adopted policies expecting government assistance, so when it becomes less available - they're stuck, creating a situation where a dependance is formed.
IMO, that's the real crux of the situation and the 'anti government' money arguement. What's the last substantive government program which has been discontinued (and not just renamed)?
Lets say that a poker buy in is $20. You get $30 total worth of chips if you put an extra $10 in. All you've done is up the ante, and you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't put that extra $10 in. This is similar to the choice states make, many states don't want to up the ante, but they're forced to because of the available 'extra buy in'.
And what about those times when the scope of the problem exceeds the capacity of the State to handle it. You are completely ignoring the issue of size.
Is the illegal immigrant problem just a Texas problem, or is it a US problem? We engage in load sharing when the problem is of national concern.
ThomasT
Aug29-11, 02:47 AM
The body of our laws has its roots in religious beliefs. We may have freedom of religion but in a sense we have a state deity mentioned in the founding documents and pictured on our coins (for the first 150 years). The alternative is the existence of an objective moral order. But to be objective it must be agreed upon. Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? No agreement in sight.Ok. Lets say that the roots are the ten commandments, ostensibly written by God on stone tablets and given to Moses. But, in the interest of parsimony, lets suppose that what really happened was that Moses observed a lot of turmoil in the camps. Things were getting out of hand. Moses wanted to straighten things out, but he didn't have the manpower. So he goes up the mountain for a couple weeks, carves these ten basic laws (that he and his lieutenants had hashed out in discussing the behavioral problems that were contributing to the inner turmoil of the rather large group of people following him) on the tablets. Comes back down when he's finished and starts taking names and kicking butts -- under the authority of the ten commandments, which the people, being a particulary superstitious lot and anyway they were afraid of Moses and his cohorts, believe were dictated by God (can't argue with supernatural authority) -- and order is restored.
Fast forward to now. At least half of the US population isn't particularly religious. My guess is that a decidedly minority percentage of our elected officials are actually religious. I would say that most of the laws in effect today are not based on religious beliefs of the lawmakers, but rather on some conception of societal control, just as with the simplified Moses scenario. It isn't a decidedly religious or moral order, at least as far as the lawmakers are concerned. Yet there's order, for the most part, and for most of the time. People, whether religious or not, seem to agree that wanton stealing, killing, and a general disregard for the law would breed the sort of chaos that nobody wants.
There are still laws that are obviously based on religious beliefs, like the Sunday 'blue' laws. But there seems to be a general trend away from making more such laws, and I suspect that our body of laws will be increasingly less rooted in and justified by religious beliefs -- provided we don't elect people like Perry.
ThomasT
Aug29-11, 02:51 AM
I really honestly don't care what the religious beliefs of the person who gets into office are as long as they realize that is just their personal beliefs and this is a country of 300 million not a nation of one.Most politicians, at least most of those outside the 'bible belt', are of this sort I think. They go to church and say they're Christians, or at least say they believe in God, because of the view that a certain percentage of their constituencies would regard an avowed non-Christian or atheist disfavorably -- and I suspect that most of them don't evaluate prospective policies wrt Christian principles per se or in theistic terms.
But this thread is about the Rick Perrys in our society -- fundamentalist Christians who are necessarily also evangelicals and who place their Christian beliefs above all else. For them, their religion isn't just a personal belief system. It's the truth wrt to which all people should live and all societies should be ordered.
I would much rather have a christian in office that is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now then an atheist who is not ok with someone else believing in a god.Why? Christianity is a set of propositions. Rationality, along with the scientific method, is a method of inquiry and inference. If Christianity is evaluated rationally, then we see that its propositions, its basic tenets, are either physically meaningless and therefore absurdly ambiguous, or, where they involve meaningful historical statements these statements must, for the most part, be taken on faith because there's no particular or compelling evidence for their truth.
It's not just that people who choose to believe in Christian propositions are somewhat contemptible in their willful ignorance, given modern resources, for choosing to believe in physically meaningless propositions, or, where the propositions are physically meaningful, for doing so wrt no evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary -- but that, in positions of power, and in ignoring the centuries of development of modern rational methods of inquiry, they represent those who would have humanity step backward to a much less enlightened time when arguments against church doctrine were punishable by imprisonment, torture and death.
Christianity, especially wrt fundamentalists like Perry, isn't just ignorant it's dangerous. No rational, critically thinking adult should want a person of Perry's ilk in a position of power, or proposing to children that, eg., creationism and intelligent design are theories comparable to and competing with the theory of evolution.
Anyway, wrt your statement, I doubt very much that Perry "is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now".
Aren't you just making the point that all of this big government fear mongering is silly? As you have noted, the Federal Government plays an important role. While the proper size of the Fed government is a legitimate point of debate, the tea party would have us believe it's the spawn of satan. We've had members here who all but want to abolish the Fed.
I'm responding to a specific comment made by turbo "Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens."
Accordingly, what are southern border states expected to do if the federal Government doesn't secure the border? The federal Government has initiated legal action against other states that have tried to deal with the issue. You can't expect these people to be over-run, tell them the need to bare the cost and not expect a push-back.
Again, perhaps all of the southern border states should pass out one-way bus tickets to Maine?
What was he wrong about? The state doesn't mandate the teaching of creationism by it self specifically (which as the article states is against the establishment clause), but it says that other theories, besides evolution, are evaluated. Creationism, intelligent design, etc could be taught side by side at the teacher's discression.
Because creationism is not a theory, that's what's wrong about it. It cannot be tested, it makes no predictions. I suppose one could use it as a lesson in the difference between theory and speculation, but to teach both as alternate theories is absolutely wrong from a scientific standpoint, let alone from an establishment clause perspective.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.
SCOTUS has consistently (AFAIK) ruled that any governmental policy which is seen as supporting or endorsing any religion is counter to the Establishment Clause. It's ironic that this ruling, by its very nature, can be viewed in a certain perspective, which is the perspective of many who support such things as posting of the 10 Commandments, as prohibiting the free exercise. I do not share that perspective, but I understand it.
In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?
WOOHOO! Godwin's Law surfaces!
Ryumast3r
Aug29-11, 09:26 AM
In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?
Seeing as how my friend owns a copy of Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto for purely academic reasons, I could totally see myself not caring whether or not they had a statue of our dear communist leader or our dear fascist Lord (Though I share an opinion much the same as the original person responded to in this post that extreme views are not really beneficial and that pandering to the extreme left would be just as bad as pandering to the extreme right). In fact, while I was in China I was going to buy a Mao Tse Tung bust made of bronze simply because they're so cheap and in practically every household... my friends also bought red books.
Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.
talk2glenn
Aug29-11, 06:27 PM
If a candidate is so blinded by their ideology that they can't even accept the evidence on something as basic as evolution, and doesn't have the basic integrity to admit "I haven't studied that, I don't know", how confident can we be that their other opinions - whether it be "lower taxes" for the Republicans, or "more social services" for the Democrats, or any other topic an individual is speaking about - will not be based on blind ideology instead of reasonable evidence.
It seems to me the flaw here, vis a vis Rick Perry specifically, is your assuming a candidate who questions the theory of evolution - or at least a specific, Dawkins-esque interpretation of it - is driven ideologically and not by a knowledge or understandong of the evidence, while a candidate who accepts it is not.
This certainly does not follow, logically, and I don't know that it follows in practice, either. When Huntsman espouses his confidence in the thoery, I doubt very much that he is any more objectively driven than Perry; their individual knowledge of the subjects specificities is probably more or less comparable, and they probably share the same underlying opinion on science and evolutionary theory, if you quizzed them on the specifics (did life start out simply and become more complex; do species change by genetic mutation; are changes inheritable; etcetera). In both cases, I think the candidates are asserting an ideological or personal position, not an evidenciary or scientific one.
In practice, the candidates opinion on the relative merits of a scientific theory aren't particularly relevant. Whether one believe in physics or not doesn't matter - the reality is, the world is physical, and that fact doesn't depend on individual belief (gravity couldn't care less what I think of it, if you will).
The better question is, can a candidate make an informed policy decision, given physical realities. I don't see why this isn't so in the case of Perry. What policy areas might be effected by Perry's opinions on evolution? Perhaps, broadly, the biolgical sciences, or healthcare. Is there any reason to suspect, given Perry's executive and political record, that he is not evidence-driven when making policy decisions realted to healthcare? I don't believe so. Has he ever advocated that Texans use the same flu vaccine, year over year, because influenza couldn't possibly evolve?
In my opinion, the question is purely a gotcha with no practical value in either direction. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that Perry didn't mean evolution doesn't occur; all he meant was, in his opinion, random selection is insufficient to explain life as it exists today. This is not incompatible with the theory. Random natural selection may be a sufficient condition, to the best of our knowledge, but I don't think any biologist can objetively claim it is the only condition. Occam's razor applies - a statement on absolute randomness or order is irrelevant to the theory. This is what Perry means when he uses the word "holes". Of course, by that definition, there are holes in every physical theory; but that's the point, isn't it? This is why we have philosophy and religion. The atheists, the causal determinists, and the randomists are making the same leaps of faith as their ideological opposition.
It seems to me the flaw here,Please edit your post to include the person you quoted.
Rick Perry flips flops, take the recent flop on gay marriage. He is dishonest, and unreliable, IMO.
It seems to me the flaw here, vis a vis Rick Perry specifically, is your assuming a candidate who questions the theory of evolution - or at least a specific, Dawkins-esque interpretation of it - is driven ideologically and not by a knowledge or understandong of the evidence, while a candidate who accepts it is not.
This certainly does not follow, logically, and I don't know that it follows in practice, either. When Huntsman espouses his confidence in the thoery, I doubt very much that he is any more objectively driven than Perry; their individual knowledge of the subjects specificities is probably more or less comparable, and they probably share the same underlying opinion on science and evolutionary theory, if you quizzed them on the specifics (did life start out simply and become more complex; do species change by genetic mutation; are changes inheritable; etcetera). In both cases, I think the candidates are asserting an ideological or personal position, not an evidenciary or scientific one.In his own words, he doesn't even know what a scientific theory is. He thinks Intelligent Design is a scientific theory!!
Explain where you stand on evolution-creationism being taught in school.
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.Scary!! :bugeye:
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/sep/11/this-series-examines-important-issues-to-texans/
He is also apparently out of touch with how bad education is in Texas (refer to his statements in above article).
This piece from Barbara Bush tells a much different story.
Our schools are in crises:
• We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.
• We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.
• We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.
• Despite our outstanding universities and colleges, we also lag behind in several critical higher education criteria. For example, California has nine nationally recognized research institutions, New York has seven and Pennsylvania has four. With the University of Houston's recent designation by the Carnegie Foundation as a top research institution, Texas, the second largest state, has four.
In light of these statistics, can we afford to cut the number of teachers, increase class sizes, eliminate scholarships for underprivileged students and close several community colleges?
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-to-cut-education-1691329.php
CAC1001
Aug29-11, 08:10 PM
Seeing as how my friend owns a copy of Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto for purely academic reasons, I could totally see myself not caring whether or not they had a statue of our dear communist leader or our dear fascist Lord (Though I share an opinion much the same as the original person responded to in this post that extreme views are not really beneficial and that pandering to the extreme left would be just as bad as pandering to the extreme right). In fact, while I was in China I was going to buy a Mao Tse Tung bust made of bronze simply because they're so cheap and in practically every household... my friends also bought red books.
Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.
If you're an ordinary citizen, sure, but a person is held to a different standard when they're the President of the United States. In this instance, it's the White House Christmas tree. Why would they have an ornament of probably the biggest mass murderer in human history on it?
That said, I do not think Barack Obama is some secret Mao-worshipping closet commie, I attribute that happening to just amateur-hour at the White House.
If you're an ordinary citizen, sure, but a person is held to a different standard when they're the President of the United States. In this instance, it's the White House Christmas tree. Why would they have an ornament of probably the biggest mass murderer in human history on it?
That said, I do not think Barack Obama is some secret Mao-worshipping closet commie, I attribute that happening to just amateur-hour at the White House.I'm sure the ornaments were placed by clueless Whitehouse helpers. It just goes to show that you can't trust anyone. :tongue: Good intentions gone terribly wrong by trusting. I would have expected some oversight.
Kind of like when Michele Obama decided to plant an organic garden in a toxic sludge pit. :rofl:
talk2glenn
Aug29-11, 08:28 PM
With all respect, Evo...
In his own words, he doesn't even know what a scientific theory is. He thinks Intelligent Design is a scientific theory!!
What did he say here that was controversial? He said all sides of a scientific theory should be examined; does anyone reasonably disagree with that? This is elementary! He never calls ID a "scientific theory". ID is, quite obviously, a theory, however. It makes claims, that are theoretically and logically testable. In practice, it is not experimentally testable, but not all theories are experimental.
Let's examine his words carefully:
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.
I specifically see him label evolution a "theory". He never uses the word - scientifically or philosophically - to refer to ID. And he specifically adds that scientific theory should be examined from all sides. Indeed, he says he believes in ID, quote, "as a matter of faith..." He adds no such qualifier for his beliefs in the natural sciences, to my knowledge.
You've read things into the statement that I don't believe are explicitly there. You might be right; he may have meant that ID is a scientific theory as much as evolution is. But I don't see it, and I don't think you can say that's what he meant for a certainty.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook...on-1691329.php
I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but let me just say this:
The stats you quote aren't normalized for soci-economic and demographic factors. Normalized, Texas public education is ranked slightly above average in outcomes, and significantly above average in efficiency (outcome per dollar).
Please remember that in raw outcome states, places like CT tend to do very well. This is because CT is overwhelmingly wealthy and white. Controlling for these factors is critical if one wants to draw meaningful conclusions.
CAC1001
Aug29-11, 08:33 PM
SCOTUS has consistently (AFAIK) ruled that any governmental policy which is seen as supporting or endorsing any religion is counter to the Establishment Clause. It's ironic that this ruling, by its very nature, can be viewed in a certain perspective, which is the perspective of many who support such things as posting of the 10 Commandments, as prohibiting the free exercise. I do not share that perspective, but I understand it.
Well I think the debate there would be, "Is a statue of the 10 Commandments a governmental policy?" Because as a statue, it's not a law anyone has to abide by nor does it prevent people from practicising religion (or at least those arguments can be made). But it depends I am sure. I would think a town doing something like that for example will be viewed a lot differently than say if such a statue was proposed for a major government building in Washington, D.C., also things like Nativity scenes at Christmas and such, makes it a gray area.
WOOHOO! Godwin's Law surfaces!
Just nitpicking :smile:, but I don't know if that qualifies in this one. Godwin's Law states that in any online conversation, irregardless of the topic, that if it goes on long enough, someone will eventually criticize some point made in the discussion by comparing it to the beliefs of the Nazis and/or Hitler. That didn't happen in this case. Instead, the point was just made about whether one could vote for someone who had a symbol of some crazy dictator such as Mao or Hitler on their Christmas tree.
CAC1001
Aug29-11, 08:38 PM
I'm sure the ornaments were placed by clueless Whitehouse helpers. It just goes to show that you can't trust anyone. :tongue: Good intentions gone terribly wrong by trusting. I would have expected some oversight.
That's what I mean, just a lack of oversight or something, the White House was probably going "OH HELL" when that happened.
Kind of like when Michele Obama decided to plant an organic garden in a toxic sludge pit. :rofl:
LOL!
With all respect, Evo...
What did he say here that was controversial? He said all sides of a scientific theory should be examined; does anyone reasonably disagree with that? This is elementary! He never calls ID a "scientific theory". ID is, quite obviously, a theory, however. It makes claims, that are theoretically and logically testable. In practice, it is not experimentally testable, but not all theories are experimental.Wow!! Are you wrong!!!
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. :uhh: You honestly don't know that?
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[134] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 26][71][n 14] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[n 27] and some have called it junk science.[n 28][135] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 29][136][n 30] it is expected to be:
Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[137] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 31] is not scientifically useful,[n 32] is not falsifiable,[n 33] is not empirically testable,[n 34] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 35][n 36][n 37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_science
Let's examine his words carefully:
I specifically see him label evolution a "theory". He never uses the word - scientifically or philosophically - to refer to ID. And he specifically adds that scientific theory should be examined from all sides. Indeed, he says he believes in ID, quote, "as a matter of faith..." He adds no such qualifier for his beliefs in the natural sciences, to my knowledge.He specifically said Intelligent Design", what are you reading? it's obviously not what I posted. He said I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellectYou are intentionally trying to skew the facts. Do you think you can omit something and we won't realize what you're doing? That's not allowed here.
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/sep/11/this-series-examines-important-issues-to-texans/
He is also apparently out of touch with how bad education is in Texas (refer to his statements in above article).
What statements? He admits they have a very high dropout rate and education could use improvement. Even with that: according to the NAEP site (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/statemapping/) Texas is trending upward, for what it's worth, in national test scores.
In percent proficiency using the NAEP standards:
In reading - Texas students went from 29->30 in 4th grade and 26->28 in 8th grade (between 2005 and 2007)
In math - 40->40 in 4th and 31->35 in 8th (between 2005 and 2007)
They seem low, but they're definately not the lowest in the country, and they're trending upward - even with the massive influx of immigration (while some states have regressed). As Evo pointed out in the NH-libertarianism (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3467677&postcount=3) thread, a state with higher immigration and urban centers would have a much harder challenge in social problems as well. Comparing to other southern-border states: Texas has higher scores in 2007 than CA, AZ, NM and is a push with FL.
He even admits that he's not in the curriculum process: The State Board of Education is an independently elected body that is charged with developing college- and career-ready curriculum standards for our state. As elected officials, they are accountable to their constituents for implementing curriculum standards that will ensure the best education possible for our state.
This piece from Barbara Bush tells a much different story.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-to-cut-education-1691329.php
She's also advocating much more parental involvement, and realized that sometimes austerity measures are neccessary - but is pleading for education to not be cut as much. And she doesn't refute that Gov. Perry has almost doubled education funding over the last decade (as is in the first article), she just says that cutting it now is unfortunate. Ultimately, her solution is more parental involvement and school pride to help out the state when it may be forced to cut funding. The title is very misleading, she really only addresses the budget issue in the introduction then goes on to talk about how the stakeholders in a child's education should be taking more action.
However, not all the challenges facing our schools are about shrinking budgets. The education of our children is a partnership — a partnership among the schools, the parents, businesses, churches and the rest of the community. - Fmr. First Lady B. Bush
Even with all of that, however, what do these test scores have to do with ID? When has Gov. Perry used this belief as a legislative tool? He says that it's the State's elected school board's job to determine the curriculum. So, applying the same logic as indicting him over his religious beliefs - couldn't one see this as evidence that he's actually willing to step aside and let the proper officials handle the problem? I think a President who's willing to ignore the constitution and the limits of his job is more dangerous than a President whom knows his limits, generally regardless of his other beliefs. I think the paradigm discussion should be on these actionable points, and track records - not hyperbolic 'what ifs' surrounding Gov. Perry's beliefs or knowledge.
-
There are two points of hypocracy that I see happening in this thread as well: I think it's a bit hypocritical that there are some in this thread that are willing to claim a technicality on Gov. Perry infering that ID=science, but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'
The second hypocracy is: why isn't the current President's religious beliefs being called into question? He's asserted that he's definately a Christian, believes in god, refers to 'the Creator', but also says that he's all for 'evolution' and trusts in science ... how can he do both? Even without taking 'the creator' statement at face value, how can someone be trusted (using the logic from many in this thread) if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent. Again, I'd personally rather have a sometimes not scientifically rational consistent President (that knows his limits) rather than an inconsistent one without a clear thought process as President. Which brings up the point - what leads anyone to believe, that aside from constant pandering to constituency, that President Obama is any more rational based on his mixed-bag of beliefs than a consistent-evangelical?
There are two points of hypocracy that I see happening in this thread as well: I think it's a bit hypocritical that there are some in this thread that are willing to claim a technicality on Gov. Perry infering that ID=science, but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'
The second hypocracy is: why isn't the current President's religious beliefs being called into question? He's asserted that he's definately a Christian, believes in god, refers to 'the Creator', but also says that he's all for 'evolution' and trusts in science ... how can he do both? Even without taking 'the creator' statement at face value, how can someone be trusted (using the logic from many in this thread) if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent. Again, I'd personally rather have a sometimes not scientifically rational consistent President (that knows his limits) rather than an inconsistent one without a clear thought process as President. Which brings up the point - what leads anyone to believe, that aside from constant pandering to constituency, that President Obama is any more rational based on his mixed-bag of beliefs than a consistent-evangelical? Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
skippy1729
Aug30-11, 01:06 AM
Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.
This is in the White House! I am not suggesting that the president is a communist or a maoist. I am not even suggesting that he gave prior approval to the ornaments use. On the other hand, the decision to use it was not made by the flunky that ultimately hung it on the tree. It was inspected and approved and approved by someone with a six figure salary whose job duties include preserving the image of the country, the White House and the president. The image of perhaps the largest mass murderer of the 20th century on the White House Christmas Tree is not a "Thing", it is an abomination. The White House chief of protocol and/or other responsible partys should have been fired.
Not by itself. But in conjunction with observation that's how we explain anything that we can explain. The theistic religious appeal to 'God's will' as an explanation isn't an explanation of anything. It's just some words that mean "we don't know".
So, yes, using observation and rational analysis we can explain why stealing and murder are considered wrong, why they're considered right in certain contexts, why there are theistic religions, why some people adhere to them and some people don't, and also why they're considered a bad thing by those who have no desire to revel in, or perpetuate, their ignorance.
When we evaluate any moral or esthetic consideration we're engaging in rational analysis.
Or, we can just do what God or Allah (or whatever) tells us to do via some book that we don't know who wrote, or when it was written, or why it was written. But we'll just take it at face value, because we're told that it was divinely inspired, that it's the word of God -- whatever that might mean. Is this the sort of behavior that you want to advocate? Are those who exhibit this sort of behavior, such as Perry, the sort of people that you want making decisions that will affect millions?
Maybe in general Perry will make more or less rational decisions about stuff. But (assuming he's a true believer) how do we know (if he were elected to the presidency) that he won't one day go off the deep end and push for something really seriously damaging and idiotic wrt any criterion other than that 'God told him to do it'?
Aside from that, and in general, I share Dawkins' contempt for theistic religions and the people who adhere to and advocate for them.
Wouldn't you rather have a society of people who understand the rationale underlying punitive laws against stealing and murder in terms of societal control and order rather than who simply accept it as a commandment of God or because of historical precedent?
On the bible, specifically: I think most Middle Eastern historians would disagree. It's widely used as a basis for historical understanding. The christian new testiment, also, we do know who wrote/assembled it (it's not god, the writings might as well be compared to Confucius or Plato in a contemplative manner). It's just the old testiment that Christians/Jews believe was written by god and sent down.
How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarilly be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?
True, but we want to minimize that sort of behavior, not glorify it. Don't we? And wrt that I think it's important to speak out against the predominant monotheistic organized religions and people like Perry.
Again, I think that Gov. Perry is being singled out (Because of his ID belief?). President Bush, one of the more overtly religious Presidents we've had since President Carter, implemented what religious based policies? It could be argued that President Clinton did more 'for religious causes' (DOMA, DADT, etc) but yet the perception is that President Bush is some bible-banging zealot. Why is this? Where's the proof that a religiousity of a President dictates their policies or advocacy?
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
Why isn't the current President called out on it then? So, just because he says he believes in evolution you give him a pass on his other, contradictory to science, religious beliefs? (which, he does refer to 'the Creator' quite a bit... is the evolution belief just a shield to make people in this forum smile?)
And my key qualifier was that the President knows his limits. Then, if the President knows his limits he can do not much harm while acting within the limits of the constitution. A President irrationally ignoring the laws of the land is ok, but a President that has a belief inconsistent with science is not? I trust Gov. Perry and his executive record (which I've not seen any religiousness) more than I trust the current shifty President.
I don't buy into religion, just as I don't buy into the zealous anti-religious hyperbole. I think it's a very, very, slippery slope to say that beliefs (even those that are wrong in the eyes of science) should be censored. I think more ignorance will happen if beliefs start getting thrown under the bus as the problems of society. Look at the leftist trend in academia - there are many accounts of Professors being denied the opportunity to pursue their opinion because it doesn't fit the mainstream canon (http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1955). Pre-determining what ideas are 'ok' stifles thought down the road and I think can be more dangerous than a few people believing in 'god' and acting on it in limited situations.
If the religious nature of society is declining, why are education scores and the US competitiveness declining as well? Wouldn't one expect an inverse correlation there if religiousness really did make people more ignorant? Scandanavian countries still have a state church, and they all seem to be doing pretty well education wise.
Why isn't the current President called out on it then? So, just because he says he believes in evolution you give him a pass on his other, contradictory to science, religious beliefs? (which, he does refer to 'the Creator' quite a bit... is the evolution belief just a shield to make people in this forum smile?)
There's a bit of mis-logic here: Having a scientific mindset does not mandate that one be an atheist. There are plenty of scientists who hold religious beliefs. The problem is the flip side: Some religious beliefs are markedly anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.
If the religious nature of society is declining, why are education scores and the US competitiveness declining as well?
That is a non sequitur.
Wouldn't one expect an inverse correlation there if religiousness really did make people more ignorant? Scandanavian countries still have a state church, and they all seem to be doing pretty well education wise.
This is worse than a non sequitur. Finland and Sweden do not have a state church, and even though Iceland, Norway, and Denmark do, it is pretty much an in-name-only kind of thing. Religiousity in Europe is rather low, and religiousity in the Scandinavian countries is low even by European standards.
Percentage of people in European countries who "believe there is a God":
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svg/500px-Europe_belief_in_god.svg.png
Source: The above graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which presents in graphical form survey results published in Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf.
Percentage of people in European countries who "believe there is a God":
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Europe_belief_in_god.svg/500px-Europe_belief_in_god.svg.png
Do you know the source of the data for your post?
OmCheeto
Aug30-11, 09:06 AM
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
I once read a paper on the internet by some professor from some religious university. I can't remember what the topic was, but he used what I thought was a most peculiar phrase; "On a secular time scale....". He was either an astronomer, climatologist, or a geologist as I recall, as his topic definitely extended beyond 6000 years.
So it strikes me that just because a person is religious, doesn't mean they automatically think that all the stars and galaxies which appear to be more than 6000 light years away are just god doodles on a giant glass orb.
Dawkins: But how do you explain those supernovas in distant galaxies?
Perry: Duh..... Those are angels playing with penlights.
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?
OmCheeto
Aug30-11, 09:18 AM
Do you know the source of the data for your post?
I was going to ask the same thing when I saw the Balkans almost white. :uhh:
France looks a little pale also. hmmm... What does the CIA say about France (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html):
Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%
Does this mean Roman Catholics don't believe in god?
Do you know the source of the data for your post?
The data are from Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf. The graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which does faithfully represent the given data. I'll put that in the post you questioned as well.
I was going to ask the same thing when I saw the Balkans almost white. :uhh:
The Balkans are grey: No data.
The data are from Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf. The graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which does faithfully represent the given data. I'll put that in the post you questioned as well.
Thank you, I understand the results better now - my bold.
"Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU
citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some
sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% declares that they don’t believe that is any sort of
spirit, God or life force."
France looks a little pale also. hmmm... What does the CIA say about France (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html):
Does this mean Roman Catholics don't believe in god?
For some, the answer is "yes". Here is what the US State Department has to say about France (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90175.htm), emphasis mine:
“Section I. Religious Demography
In accordance with its definition of separation of state and religion, the Government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation. According to a January 2007 poll, 51 percent of respondents indicate they are Catholic, even if they never attend religious services. Another 31 percent of those polled state that they have no religious affiliation. Among Catholics, only 8 percent attend Mass weekly, one third do so "occasionally," and 46 percent attend "only for baptisms, weddings, and funerals." Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”
Why is it that when talking about the shortcomings of Republicans or the Republican candidates, some (not all) PF members on the right will say, "Yes, but the Democrats and Obama.....", and when talking about the shortcomings of Democrats and Obama, some (but not all) PF members on the left will say, "Yes, but the Republicans and Bush...."? Especially when the response has nothing to do with the OP or the comments made in a quoted post.
Unless, of course, one is trying to lay blame on one side or the other, then it makes sense.
It sort of reminds me of the "Ice Cream" debate in the movie "Thank You for Smoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY)" (an awesome movie, btw).
Why is it that when talking about the shortcomings of Republicans or the Republican candidates, some (not all) PF members on the right will say, "Yes, but the Democrats and Obama.....", and when talking about the shortcomings of Democrats and Obama, some (but not all) PF members on the left will say, "Yes, but the Republicans and Bush...."? Especially when the response has nothing to do with the OP or the comments made in a quoted post.
Unless, of course, one is trying to lay blame on one side or the other, then it makes sense.
It sort of reminds me of the "Ice Cream" debate in the movie "Thank You for Smoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY)" (an awesome movie, btw).
My post fits your description in this exchange with turbo:
"Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
***
How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"
The problem daveb, is how else can you respond to such a colorful (""aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin") post?
Thank you, I understand the results better now - my bold.
"Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU
citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some
sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% declares that they don’t believe that is any sort of
spirit, God or life force."
Now look at the numbers for Scandinavia. The percentage who believe there is a God ranges from 23% in Sweden to 41% in Finland, all below the 52% average across all of Europe. The majority of Swedes and close to the majority of Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders express the warm and fuzzy belief that "there is some sort of spirit or life force" but explicitly reject "I believe there is a God".
And now look at the response by Americans to a similar set of questions from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx.
Even if you give them lots of ways to express doubt, a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation).
Now look at the numbers for Scandinavia. The percentage who believe there is a God ranges from 23% in Sweden to 41% in Finland, all below the 52% average across all of Europe. The majority of Swedes and close to the majority of Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders express the warm and fuzzy belief that "there is some sort of spirit or life force" but explicitly reject "I believe there is a God".
And now look at the response by Americans to a similar set of questions from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx.
Even if you give them lots of ways to express doubt, a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation).
Well if "a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation)" - why wouldn't a candidate want to align themselves with the majority.
Sometimes I just don't understand the "God-less Dems"? Yes, label the last comment IMO.:biggrin:
OmCheeto
Aug30-11, 10:46 AM
....Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”
That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.
ThomasT
Aug30-11, 11:08 AM
On the bible, specifically: I think most Middle Eastern historians would disagree. It's widely used as a basis for historical understanding. The christian new testiment, also, we do know who wrote/assembled it (it's not god, the writings might as well be compared to Confucius or Plato in a contemplative manner). It's just the old testiment that Christians/Jews believe was written by god and sent down.I agree that the religious texts are used, to a certain extent and along with nonreligious artifacts and writings, as a basis for historical understanding. But, as far as I'm aware, the exact dates of original authorship as well as the identity of the original authors is still largely unknown and a matter of somewhat disputed speculations.
What we're concerned with here, wrt people like Perry, is the belief that the religious texts are 'divinely inspired', which is meaningful in terms of some sort of emotional association, but has (and can have) no basis in evidentiary fact.
These sorts of beliefs provide emotional/intellectual comfort to the believers, and an affinity for this sort of comfort is the basis of willful ignorance and closemindedness.
How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarily be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?Wanton stealing, raping, killing, extortion, etc., threaten the comfort, safety, and survival of individuals, and ultimately the survival of the group or society. Afaik, even wrt most lower animal groups/societies some sort of order is enforced for those same reasons. I'm pretty sure that wolves and apes aren't Christians, but they do have a vested interest in fostering the survival of their groups, which would certainly be threatened by too much internal conflict.
Again, I think that Gov. Perry is being singled out ...Yes. Note the thread title. But we're also talking about the nonrationalist, even antirationalist, orientation of the theistic religious in general, and especially wrt the fundamentalist adherents to the main monotheistic religions (ie., people like Perry), and why that orientation isn't a desirable one for people (especially those in or aspiring to positions of power) to choose, and why candidates for public office who espouse that orientation shouldn't be supported.
... (Because of his ID belief?).That, and any other nonrational, nonsensical beliefs that he might harbor due to his theistic religious orientation, which might lead to nonrational, nonsensical actions as a public official.
President Bush, one of the more overtly religious Presidents we've had since President Carter, implemented what religious based policies? It could be argued that President Clinton did more 'for religious causes' (DOMA, DADT, etc) but yet the perception is that President Bush is some bible-banging zealot. Why is this? Where's the proof that a religiousity of a President dictates their policies or advocacy?It would be difficult if not impossible to prove it (though there are indications, eg. see Bush on his holy mission in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa) ). But why take the chance? If a person is either a bible-thumping zealot or pandering to that segment of the population, then as far as I'm concerned they're not fit to hold public office. The danger is that they might advocate policies that are detrimental in many different ways wrt, eg., education, scientific research, preemptively invading sovereign nations, etc.
Bush is perceived as "some bible-banging zealot" because that's the image that he cultivated. Perry too. I think Dawkins correctly characterized such people as ignoramuses (at least wrt their professed Christian fundamentalist beliefs). Of course Bush and Perry aren't ignoramuses wrt many things, and they're for the most part, imo, very intelligent/cunning/clever. But if they are true fundamentalist Christians, and therefore ignoramuses wrt the set of beliefs that they hold to be of primary importance, then I don't trust them to not be ignoramuses wrt some future consideration which might unnecessarily negatively affect the lives of millions of people.
Assuming that Perry is truly a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, then his beliefs via that orientation aren't just personal beliefs to be kept personal and separate from considerations of state. To him they're the truth, and must therefore play an important role in his decision making process.
And if he isn't and is pandering to the faithful millions, then their ignorant beliefs will be playing an important role in his decision making process.
Either alternative presents a potential problem which can and should be avoided, imo.
ThomasT
Aug30-11, 11:12 AM
That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.I grew up in a small town that had a couple of Catholic churches and associated schools. I'm pretty sure the bake sales and festivals have a lot to do with it. As well as sports, the bigness and gaudiness of the churches/cathedrals, the parades, etc. It's a social thing.
I don't understand your analogy.
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 12:07 PM
but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'
Evolution is both a fact (species change over time) and a theory (natural selection/survival of the fittest). The observed changes are facts, the proposed mechanisms are theories.
if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent.
CAC1001 presented this false dichotomy before, and I already addressed it. Many people believe in various combinations of creation and evolution.
It can be a deistic approach, where the creator sets the laws of physics and lets the universe run like an infinitely complex Rube-Goldberg contraption, until some goal (the creation of humans) is reached.
It can be theistic evolution, where the creator starts the ball rolling, and tweaks things as it goes, so that a target (the creation of humans) is reached.
There is a dichotomy between biblical literalism and evolution, but fortunately not every Christian is a literalist.
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 12:21 PM
The problem daveb, is how else can you respond to such a colorful (""aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin") post?
You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...
Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).
This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular. The fact that the only defenses we've seen so far are "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect their decisions" and "but Dems are worse!!!11eleventy1one" is rather telling. It suggests to me that this problem is endemic in the Republican party, and their supporters (the ones here at least) know it.
Set aside any problems with the Democratic party (feel free to start a new thread about them). Set aside the impact of anti-science mentality on policy decisions (for now at least). Do you (general 'you' meaning Republican supporters, not restricted to WhoWee) agree or disagree that the Republican party has a tendency to nominate science-illiterate candidates, and that the Republican supporters tend to vote preferentially for science-illiterate/anti-science candidates?
You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...
Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).
This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular.
First, why are Christian candidates incompetent? Next, when was it established the entire Republican Party has an "anti-science stance" - please support.
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 01:30 PM
First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?
Now you're just making things up. I never claimed anything to that effect.
Next, when was it established the entire Republican Party has an "anti-science stance" - please support.
Republican candidates:
Believe in evolution:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney (believes in "guided evolution", but I put him here to give you the benefit of the doubt)
Disbelieve evolution:
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
No comment/on the fence:
Newt Gingrich
Herman Cain
Still trying to find the views of other candidates, will update when I find them.
Edit: Haven't been able to find explicit views from any of the other candidates, and I don't have time to keep looking. I think this covers all the significant declared candidates at the moment, however.
How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarilly be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?
Rationality is not a belief system. You simplified beyond credibility here.
I am, what some people would call, an 'emphatic' humanist. (Don't read too much into the emphatic part, it's just to distinguish from Christian or atheist humanism, which are somewhat different, or even incompatible belief systems.) Humanism is a belief system, it gives me moral guidance, though sometimes different than others.
Often, the religious -often monotheistic- stance, and you seem to subscribe to that, is that religion has the moral monopoly on ethical systems. It doesn't. For me, it is incomprehensible why people think that ethics can be derived from books written in pre-medieval times.
To each his own.
EDIT: I should have said, rationality isn't an ethical/belief system, but can be employed to arrive at one. To me, that means I arrive at some form of humanism.
[U]Even with all of that, however, what do these test scores have to do with ID?No one said they were. :uhh:
You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent...First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?
So, WhoWee, are you saying that there are no competent Christian Republican candidates out there? It sure looks that way to me! NeoDevin did not say that the entire pack of Republican candidates are incompetent. He didn't even drag religion into it. He merely challenged supporters to point out some Republican candidates who are competent. So why don't you do that: Name names and say what they have accomplished.
Now you're just making things up. I never claimed anything to that effect.
Republican candidates:
Believe in evolution:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney (believes in "guided evolution", but I put him here to give you the benefit of the doubt)
Disbelieve evolution:
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
No comment/on the fence:
Newt Gingrich
Herman Cain
Still trying to find the views of other candidates, will update when I find them.
Edit: Haven't been able to find explicit views from any of the other candidates, and I don't have time to keep looking. I think this covers all the significant declared candidates at the moment, however.
Did I make up your statement?
[I]"You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent..."/I]
That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.You can be born Catholic, so idenitfy as a Catholic when asked what your religion is, but that doesn't mean that you attend Mass or aren't agnostic. I was born Roman Catholic, will tell people I'm catholic, but I am also an atheist. Go figure.
So, WhoWee, are you saying that there are no competent Christian Republican candidates out there? It sure looks that way to me! NeoDevin did not say that the entire pack of Republican candidates are incompetent. He didn't even drag religion into it. He merely challenged supporters to point out some Republican candidates who are competent. So why don't you do that: Name names and say what they have accomplished.
I asked "First, why are Christian candidates incompetent?"
Does a strict belief in evolution - or a strict belief there is no God - automatically make a candidate competent to govern?
As for his specific comment that "Maybe you could actually disagree with the OP (you know, staying on topic), and point out why the anti-science mentality isn't a problem with the Republican party (assuming you don't think it is).
This thread is about the anti-science stance of the Republican party (and their voters), and Rick Perry in particular. The fact that the only defenses we've seen so far are "it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect their decisions" and "but Dems are worse!!!11eleventy1one" is rather telling. It suggests to me that this problem is endemic in the Republican party, and their supporters (the ones here at least) know it." my bold
When was it ever established as fact that Republicans (or Christians) are "anti-science" - evolution is but a single subject.
Does a strict belief in evolution - or a strict belief there is no God - automatically make a candidate competent to govern?
Of course not. Then again, nobody has said that.
When was it ever established as fact that Republicans (or Christians) are "anti-science" - evolution is but a single subject.
Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.
Am I a left wing wacko for saying this? No. I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.
Of course not. Then again, nobody has said that.
Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.
Am I a left wing wacko for saying this? No. I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.
Why do you think anyone except Romney will be the Republican candidate?
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 02:56 PM
I agree with WhoWee and see a host of problems with this thread:
1. The starting premise of the thread, "...the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is an improper assumption of a fact (facts), which must be proven if, indeed it can be a fact, but which more likely is simply an opinion-type statement and inherrently unprovable.
2. For that premise, it is simply incorrect to assume that a single benchmark issue - particularly one with virtually no relevance or impact on its own - will predict a candidate's scientific competency. I have experience with scientifically-minded religious people who will accept science right up until it butts-heads with religion and then reject the science out of hand. The breadth of the issues with science thus depends on the breadth of the religious views. The creation story just happens to be one of the most prominent issues and may well be one of the only issues for which a religious candidate might reject science on religious grounds.
3. You cannot extrapolate from the candidates to the voters if the voters aren't being presented with prominent candiates of a different belief system to vote for.
4. You cannot single-out the Republicans when the choice isn't between the Republicans and nothing, but rather between the Republicans and the Democrats. The issues some Republican candidates have with science are disturbing to me, but they have to be weighed on their own importance and against my issues with Democratic candidates. Anything less and I'm not thinking through my choices. Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper. Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for. This sounds, to me, similar to the attempts to use abortion as a benchmark issue in the '90s, when there was no abortion issue to be decided in an election! It's a liberal smokescreen, designed to distract votors from thinking about issues that actually matter.
Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country.That is also my concern, how can they make a choice that goes against their beliefs (when going against their beliefs is for the greater good) when they say that their beliefs are from *god*?
I have been voting Republican, oftentimes straight Republican, since Reagan's second term. But probably not in 2012.I'm stunned by the list of Republican hopefuls for 2012. What happened? There isn't much time left for a mainstream candidate to throw their hat in.
...
Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for.
...
I'm pretty sure if we disqualified all candidates of either party for sloppy science comprehension, we'd be seeing other candidates that could easily be qualified to run our country.
I'm stunned by the list of Republican hopefuls for 2012. What happened? There isn't much time left for a mainstream candidate to throw their hat in.
How is Romney not mainstream?
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 03:21 PM
Evolution is a fact, a fact has been in the public arena for over a century. Denying evolution is, to me, denying reality. It is not a single subject. It is a bellwether. To me a candidate who denies evolution means that the candidate is so completely out of touch with reality, so drawn into a fundamentalist (not Christian! Being Christian does not mean you have to deny evolution) ideology that I simply cannot trust that candidate will do the right thing for our country. I think that stance would be reasonable only if you knew nothing else about a candidate. Thats what a bellwether is, right? But today, the most important issues are economic, so if a candidate has an economic policy that I agree with, then his belief in creation has failed to accurately predict his [in]competency.
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 03:22 PM
I'm pretty sure if we disqualified all candidates of either party for sloppy science comprehension, we'd be seeing other candidates that could easily be qualified to run our country. I wish we actually had the power to do that.
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 03:30 PM
That is also my concern, how can they make a choice that goes against their beliefs (when going against their beliefs is for the greater good) when they say that their beliefs are from *god*?
Does God want Romney to balance the budget? Does his belief in creation give us any insight?
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 03:33 PM
1. The starting premise of the thread, "...the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is an improper assumption of a fact (facts), which must be proven if, indeed it can be a fact, but which more likely is simply an opinion-type statement and inherrently unprovable.
This has been supported with numerous examples up-thread already.
For more evidence that republicans, as a group, deny reality:
Only 30% of Republicans believe in evolution (vs. 61% and 57% of independents and Democrats, respectively) (http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/)
Only 33% of Republicans believe Obama was born in US (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/157167-poll-plurality-of-republicans-say-obama-born-outside-us) (I couldn't find anything since the release of the long form birth certificate. But if the short form didn't change their minds, why would the long form?)
2. For that premise, it is simply incorrect to assume that a single benchmark issue - particularly one with virtually no relevance or impact on its own - will predict a candidate's scientific competency. I have experience with scientifically-minded religious people who will accept science right up until it butts-heads with religion and then reject the science out of hand. The breadth of the issues with science thus depends on the breadth of the religious views. The creation story just happens to be one of the most prominent issues and may well be one of the only issues for which a religious candidate might reject science on religious grounds.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread:
Young earth creationism alone requires denial of: biology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and cosmology (and a whole lot of subtopics in each).
Like it or not, denial of evolution requires rejecting the vast majority of modern science.
3. You cannot extrapolate from the candidates to the voters if the voters aren't being presented with prominent candiates of a different belief system to vote for.
Aside from the additional links above, the question then becomes why they aren't being presented with prominent candidates of a 'different (reality based?) belief system'?
4. You cannot single-out the Republicans when the choice isn't between the Republicans and nothing, but rather between the Republicans and the Democrats. The issues some Republican candidates have with science are disturbing to me, but they have to be weighed on their own importance and against my issues with Democratic candidates. Anything less and I'm not thinking through my choices. Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper. Most candidates, from all sides, have issues for which they act stupidly and if we disqualified for those issues, we'd have no candidates left to vote for. This sounds, to me, similar to the attempts to use abortion as a benchmark issue in the '90s, when there was no abortion issue to be decided in an election! It's a liberal smokescreen, designed to distract votors from thinking about issues that actually matter.
We can't single out a single issue when making our complete decision, but we can single out a single issue for discussion in this thread. If you want to discuss other issues, start a new thread.
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 03:35 PM
I wish we actually had the power to do that.
See, we can agree on something!
How is Romney not mainstream?He's more mainstream than the others, but with all of his flip flops, I don't know who he is or what he really believes.
Does God want Romney to balance the budget? Does his belief in creation give us any insight?Does he talk to god too? :tongue2: I thought he's claimed that he's not going to let his religion affect his decisions.
Then he flipped flopped on abortion, stem cell research, etc... to come inline with his beliefs. So, who knows.
He's more mainstream than the others, but with all of his flip flops, I don't know who he is or what he really believes.
I see Romney as being comparable to Bill Clinton in his second term - the center to center/right Clinton that agreed to welfare reform.
I see Romney as being comparable to Bill Clinton in his second term - the center to center/right Clinton that agreed to welfare reform.Clinton didn't oppose women's rights nor did he wish to limit stem cell research, IIRC.
Perhaps we should start a thread on him, on whether he's a viable candidate. It seems the "Christians" don't like him because he's Morman, the middle and more liberal people disagree with his "moral" issues.
Clinton didn't oppose women's rights nor did he wish to limit stem cell research, IIRC.
Perhaps we should start a thread on him, on whether he's a viable candidate. It seems the "Christians" don't like him because he's Morman, the middle and more liberal people disagree with his "moral" issues.
Clinton certainly embraced women - Hillary might've been the friend of women's rights?:biggrin:
I don't think the moderate Dems, Independents, or moderate Repubs care that he's a Mormon.
Clinton certainly embraced women - Hillary might've been the friend of women's rights?:biggrin:
I don't think the moderate Dems, Independents, or moderate Repubs care that he's a Mormon.I'll stick my neck out and say, IMO, he's the only viable Republican candidate, but he'll need to de-flop to get my interest. Right now I can't honestly say who I would back.
When I google Romney, all I see is how he's not considered viable. That's a shame.
Ivan Seeking
Aug30-11, 04:57 PM
President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
When I google Romney, all I see is how he's not considered viable. That's a shame.Personally, I don't think that he is a viable candidate. I don't see how he can possibly carry the bible-belt, and any GOP candidate is going to need the southern right to prevail in the general election. GOP strategists are going to play this up, IMO, in the run-up to the primaries, though they are unlikely to be honest about why they want to marginalize Romney.
mheslep
Aug30-11, 05:05 PM
I agree with Russ's first point, that the premise "the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is unsupported in this thread, as of Russ's post. NeoDevin's only relevant reference was Dawkin's statement, and Evo's four relevant references (Forbes, NYT, HuffPo) were about Perry and Bachman.
Furthermore, an examination that purports to determine who or who is not denying reality by only posting surveys of Republicans is at best myopic. As for digging up Birther polls (and reporting only one side of them), recall that nearly a third (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance )of Democrats believed former Pres Bush had a hand in 911. As for the adherence to science based policy, see the current administration in i) its utterly politicized handling of nuclear waste and ii) the intentional omission of expert recommendations on the Gulf drilling ban.
Gokul43201
Aug30-11, 07:13 PM
A purely rational individual would not value human life as highly as we do now. I call BS on this. Do you have something to support this assertion?
I believe that's a significant religious involvement in our society (specifically a Christian belief). We'd put far more people to death for relatively insignificant crimes if the regard for human life wasn't there.This is an argument against your assertion above, since it turns out that more religious conservative organizations support putting people to death than more liberal religious groups or non-religious groups.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty#state
I just don't see the doom/gloom that many in this thread see with respect to having a fundamentalist Christian president. We have plenty of checks, balances, and failsafes in place to prevent the take over of government in the manner predicted here (like they'd even try anyhow). I'd wager that even some of the 'extreme!' fundamentalist Christians that may be on the ticket in 2012 don't hold a candle in their beliefs to some past presidents. Electing them President doesn't instantly (or even in time) make this country a 'christian-law country' with crosses in every school and a mandatory prayer every morning like some are trying to make it seem.I agree, for the most part. But I'd still be very nervous about taking a chance on electing someone who doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut7.htm
Nearly all religious groups are officially abolitionist with respect to the death penalty.Nope. The larger and more conservative groups (Evangelists, Southern Baptists, etc.) support abortion (oops!) the death penalty; the more liberal groups (Unitarians, Episcopalians, etc.) do not.
The better question is, can a candidate make an informed policy decision, given physical realities.Agreed. Though one has to be nervous about the thought that a President might reject a physical reality that clashes with his faith. Or has Perry told us how old he thinks the Earth is?
I agree with Russ's first point, that the premise "the anti-science stance of the Republican Party (and their voters)" is unsupported in this thread, as of Russ's post. NeoDevin's only relevant reference was Dawkin's statement, and Evo's four relevant references (Forbes, NYT, HuffPo) were about Perry and Bachman.BobG mentioned the 2007 debate where Tancredo, Brownback, etc. disavowed belief in evolution. Santorum does too. While the premise may not have been well-supported until later in the thread, the sentiment is hardly something new. After all, even John Huntsman's campaign adviser recently said: “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-and-romney-split-on-climate-change/2011/08/17/gIQAgawNLJ_story.html
But I agree that the premise demands a lot more scrutiny.
Furthermore, an examination that purports to determine who or who is not denying reality by only posting surveys of Republicans is at best myopic.Are we looking at different posts? I clearly see comparisons of Republicans with Democrats and Independents.
Nope. The larger and more conservative groups (Evangelists, Southern Baptists, etc.) support abortion; the more liberal groups (Unitarians, Episcopalians, etc.) do not.Did you get that backwards?
Gokul43201
Aug30-11, 07:21 PM
Did you get that backwards?Eek! I meant the death penalty. Fixing now.
Eek! I meant the death penalty. Fixing now.LOL, I know I don't keep up with politics, but I was pretty sure I would have read about that! :biggrin:
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 07:47 PM
This has been supported with numerous examples up-thread already. No, it hasn't: For more evidence that republicans, as a group, deny reality:
Only 30% of Republicans believe in evolution (vs. 61% and 57% of independents and Democrats, respectively) (http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/)
Only 33% of Republicans believe Obama was born in US (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/157167-poll-plurality-of-republicans-say-obama-born-outside-us) (I couldn't find anything since the release of the long form birth certificate. But if the short form didn't change their minds, why would the long form?)
Like it or not, denial of evolution requires rejecting the vast majority of modern science. I agree with the facts of the statistics, but extending that to mean that those people are anti-science in general is a conclusion that you are drawing - it is not a fact. And it is a flawed conclusion because you are ignoring at least two other possibilities, that I'm sure most of us have witnessed in this very forum:
1. Ignorance. You can't be anti-something that you don't know about. If a person comes here and reads off the crackpot anti-evolution arguments list, sure, they are anti-science in general. But if someone doesn't know about the evidence for evolution in geology, a belief in creationism is not automatically a rejection of geology.
2. Cognitive dissonance. People hold contradictory views, in particular when it comes to religion, so it is entirely possible (and again, I've seen it here) for a person to reject the science of one topic where it interferes with religion, but accept it in another instance where it doesn't. Aside from the additional links above, the question then becomes why they aren't being presented with prominent candidates of a 'different (reality based?) belief system'? Connotation aside, the reason we get the candidates we get are really two-fold:
1. There is a lot of campaign money in Christian fundamentalism.
2. Political campaigns are popularity contests and notoriety=popularity, regardless of if people are known in a positive way. So people like Palin and Bachman can perform for the media, the media eats it up and broadcasts it, and people remember their names when asked about them in polls. It's sad, but it's reality.
We can't single out a single issue when making our complete decision, but we can single out a single issue for discussion in this thread. If you want to discuss other issues, start a new thread. Understood - I just wanted to make sure people don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the discussion in this thread is constrained to one issue, it is actually reasonable to make a decision based on that one issue - and an issue that in and of itself has essentially no significance. That's a silly game people seemed to be playing here.
russ_watters
Aug30-11, 07:51 PM
Furthermore, an examination that purports to determine who or who is not denying reality by only posting surveys of Republicans is at best myopic. As for digging up Birther polls (and reporting only one side of them), recall that nearly a third (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance )of Democrats believed former Pres Bush had a hand in 911. More direct, recall that the Democrats have their own "birther" conspiracy theory, about McCain. It has faded away, but then, he lost the election, so it is tough to know if it would have continued had he won.
Ivan Seeking
Aug30-11, 08:02 PM
That is also my concern, how can they make a choice that goes against their beliefs (when going against their beliefs is for the greater good) when they say that their beliefs are from *god*?
I think Obama addresses this in the video linked earlier. This is easy to resolve once one recognizes the difference between living by one's faith or beliefs, and trying to make everyone else live by one's faith or beliefs.
Russ, this is ridiculous. Some extremists brought up the fact that McCain was born in a militarily controlled territory, and not US soil. That was bound to fail, and I think all rational voters thought so, regardless of whether they favored McCain or not.
Right-wing nuts have claimed that Obama was born in Africa (that BIG country that Palin knows all about), and have claimed that Obama was not born in the US despite state birth certificates, and birth announcements in two Honalulu newspapers. That is a WHOLE lot different than asking if a person born in a foreign country (even if the US controlled it) is qualified to run for the presidency. There is a difference.
Ivan Seeking
Aug30-11, 08:06 PM
More direct, recall that the Democrats have their own "birther" conspiracy theory, about McCain. It has faded away, but then, he lost the election, so it is tough to know if it would have continued had he won.
None of this compares to what we've seen from the right. It is a matter of proportion. There have always been extreme elements on both sides. That does not explain what we've seen from the right wing in recent years.
More direct, recall that the Democrats have their own "birther" conspiracy theory, about McCain. It has faded away, but then, he lost the election, so it is tough to know if it would have continued had he won.
There was never any "conspiracy" -- he was, in fact, born in Panama.
Your argument of "Well, the dems do it too!" is extremely weak, since any comparison between what a blogger or two wrote about McCain, and what happened with those batsh!t crazy birthers...it just makes the birthers look even more nutty.
Personally, I don't think that he is a viable candidate. I don't see how he can possibly carry the bible-belt, and any GOP candidate is going to need the southern right to prevail in the general election. GOP strategists are going to play this up, IMO, in the run-up to the primaries, though they are unlikely to be honest about why they want to marginalize Romney.
I understand why you say you don't see how Romney can possibly carry the Bible-belt - against a Perry/Bachman/Santorum - but against the real opponent (President Obama) he certainly has a chance with this group - doesn't he?
I understand why you say you don't see how Romney can possibly carry the Bible-belt - against a Perry/Bachman/Santorum - but against the real opponent (President Obama) he certainly has a chance with this group - doesn't he?
I think perhaps he does. Of course, they could stay home and just sit this one out.
Romney is probably the closest in the field to a mainstream candidate. I think he's the only one who could get the independent voters, which is the real prize. Problem is, how is he going to win the evangelical vote, which he needs to get the nomination? He'd have to shift his positions...again. And as Evo pointed out, that's already been a problem with him.
Char. Limit
Aug31-11, 12:55 AM
me three. :approve:
Me four.
My views on the problem, feel free to label IMO:
A belief or disbelief of evolution has been a litmus test issue with me for a while, for the reasoning that evolution is backed up by a LOT of evidence. And if you refuse to see the evidence on something like evolution, how can I trust you to see evidence on an issue like global warming, or the economy, or potential conflicts?
That said, if Perry wins the nomination, I will not vote for him.
Ivan Seeking
Aug31-11, 01:40 AM
No, it hasn't: I agree with the facts of the statistics, but extending that to mean that those people are anti-science in general is a conclusion that you are drawing - it is not a fact. And it is a flawed conclusion because you are ignoring at least two other possibilities, that I'm sure most of us have witnessed in this very forum:
1. Ignorance. You can't be anti-something that you don't know about. If a person comes here and reads off the crackpot anti-evolution arguments list, sure, they are anti-science in general. But if someone doesn't know about the evidence for evolution in geology, a belief in creationism is not automatically a rejection of geology.
You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance. The Red Scare was based on ignorance. In the case of science, about the only way to be anti-science is to be ignorant.
You seem to be suggesting that a majority or unusually high percentage of Republicans might be ignorant.
2. Cognitive dissonance. People hold contradictory views, in particular when it comes to religion, so it is entirely possible (and again, I've seen it here) for a person to reject the science of one topic where it interferes with religion, but accept it in another instance where it doesn't.
And to what degree does this cognitive dissonance result in the desire to teach intelligent design, or creationism, along with that other little theory, evolution, in public schools? The problem is not just belief but the resulting political agenda. And if a person can so casually oscillate between faith and fact according to the issue, then they really can't be very rational in the first place. How can someone be pro-science but only accept overwhelming evidence when it's convenient? This only shows that logic might be abandoned at any turn in favor of a warm and fuzzy feeling. How is that not anti-science?
I just wanted to make sure people don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the discussion in this thread is constrained to one issue, it is actually reasonable to make a decision based on that one issue - and an issue that in and of itself has essentially no significance. That's a silly game people seemed to be playing here.
Obviously a lot of people do believe it's significant and not a game. You are voicing an opinion [a belief], not a fact.
skippy1729
Aug31-11, 02:12 AM
Suppose you are to vote in the election of 1800. Assume, for the sake of argument, that you are STRONGLY opposed to the Alien and Sedition Act which Jefferson opposes and Adams supports. Jefferson was a slave owner and Adams opposed slavery. At this point in history there was no realistic scenario where the result of this election would affect the legality of slavery on a nationwide basis.
Who would you vote for?
You may have dozens of reasons not to vote for Perry but I hope that they are more substantive than his pandering (or possible sincere belief) in Creationism. If you really want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom question your candidates for your state legislature and your local school board.
I, personally, don't care if my politicians understand science. However, I do want my politicians to say "I don't know" when confronted to science, instead of simply accepting an ideology without proof.
A person who says that "I don't know, so I can't judge" gains a lot of respect in my book.
This is what every single leader should read: something like "Leadership 101" would suffice.
I was at a Toastmasters meeting and they had a table topic competition on whether the common man should run the country, and the speaker made a great point that people that really have no idea should stop talking and let the people that do have some idea have the floor and give their opinion.
It is a hallmark of a good leader when they have the courage (especially in front of many people) to say the words "I don't know the answer" or "This is not my area of expertise".
This culture of "not appearing stupid" no matter what the circumstance really needs to change.
CAC1001
Aug31-11, 03:43 AM
Me four.
My views on the problem, feel free to label IMO:
A belief or disbelief of evolution has been a litmus test issue with me for a while, for the reasoning that evolution is backed up by a LOT of evidence. And if you refuse to see the evidence on something like evolution, how can I trust you to see evidence on an issue like global warming, or the economy, or potential conflicts?
Wish I was half as well-spoken as you are when I was your age :smile: Anyways, evidence for evolution versus evidence for issues such as global warming, the economy, and conflicts, I think are different things. The Left and the Right repeatedly ignore evidence regarding different economic policies, potential conflicts, that depends a lot too, and as for global warming, well I wouldn't put that in the same type of theorizing as evolution and gravity for example. The thing about evolutionary theory or gravity theory isn't so much just all the evidence, but the pure lack of any other explanation.
CAC1001
Aug31-11, 04:16 AM
You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance.
Fear of the Soviets was very legitimate and yes they had some very evil agendas (the very existence of the Soviet Union itself was evil). Remember, there was no proof that they were going to collapse anytime soon either and likely would not have if not for a variety of different things that occurred. I'd say the fear of the United States from the Soviet peoples was based more on ignorance than fear of the Soviet Union by the American people.
Problem is, how is he going to win the evangelical vote, which he needs to get the nomination? He'd have to shift his positions...again. And as Evo pointed out, that's already been a problem with him.
He needs to avoid the entire debate about religion - challenge Perry on policies only - to win the nomination.
Perry/Bachman/Santorum can fight the Left (and God-less Dems:rofl:) all they want - (hint) it might just be a trap to make the Left appear God-less? The Evangelicals aren't going to support the God-less party - are they?
Romney needs to stay focused on Obama and the economy to win - avoid the nonsense.
He needs to avoid the entire debate about religion - challenge Perry on policies only - to win the nomination.
Perry/Bachman/Santorum can fight the Left (and God-less Dems:rofl:) all they want - (hint) it might just be a trap to make the Left appear God-less? The Evangelicals aren't going to support the God-less party - are they?
Romney needs to stay focused on Obama and the economy to win - avoid the nonsense.
You've used that term "God-less Dems", several times now. What do you mean by it? Please explain.
Attempts to create a single benchmark, dealbreaker issue (from a non-issue, at that!) from which to disqualify Republican candidates are just weak and simpleminded attempts to back Republicans into a corner made of tissue-paper.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that single issue litmus tests are not how I make sdecisions, there are numerous others who do have litmus tests, such as a pro-life or pro-choice stance, etc., so to dismiss their litmus test IMO is an attempt to marginalize their opinion.
You've used that term "God-less Dems", several times now. What do you mean by it? Please explain.
Of course lisab - we'll need to roll back to the origins in post 198 - where I requested permission to use the term (my bold):
""Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all."
"How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"
russ_watters
Aug31-11, 10:35 AM
While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that single issue litmus tests are not how I make sdecisions, there are numerous others who do have litmus tests, such as a pro-life or pro-choice stance, etc., so to dismiss their litmus test IMO is an attempt to marginalize their opinion.Yes, that's correct. If popularity equalled legitimacy, we wouldn't have this thread!
OmCheeto
Aug31-11, 10:36 AM
OMG!
In my never ending quest to bring harmony to the universe; "Dear Mr. Perry, If you allow all of the creation stories to be taught in school, then I don't have a problem with it."
A Hindu story of Creation: (http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm)
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om.
And the Hindu text didest speakest to me by my self given silly nickname. And I thoughtest that was very weird, but made-est me feel quite special this morning.
o:)
Vishnu loves me, yes I know, for the Bhagavadgītā tells me so.....
/me runs and hides under the sheets knowing the wrath of the PF gods and goddesses is about to be unleashed
OMG!
In my never ending quest to bring harmony to the universe; "Dear Mr. Perry, If you allow all of the creation stories to be taught in school, then I don't have a problem with it."
A Hindu story of Creation: (http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm)
And the Hindu text didest speakest to me by my self given silly nickname. And I thoughtest that was very weird, but made-est me feel quite special this morning.
o:)
Vishnu loves me, yes I know, for the Bhagavadgītā tells me so.....
/me runs and hides under the sheets knowing the wrath of the PF gods and goddesses is about to be unleashedI want Perry to explain the equally significant decision by God to place the earth on the back of a giant trout.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hokkaido/legtro.html
Or maybe we should just admit that religion has no place in politics. It's about government, not about churches and their beliefs, or at least that's what I though.
Of course lisab - we'll need to roll back to the origins in post 198 - where I requested permission to use the term (my bold):
""Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?
Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all."
"How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"
Yes, but my question was: what do you mean by the term?
Yes, but my question was: what do you mean by the term?
Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?
Ivan Seeking
Aug31-11, 11:20 AM
Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?
While there certainly are many Godless dems, pretty much all [most] Democratic politicians at the national level are religious. The difference is that religion doesn't define their platform.
It's that whole separation of church and State nonsense. :biggrin:
I would add that the Dems are not in jeopardy of losing the evangelical vote as they would never get it anyway. That about says it all. This isn't about religion, it is about fundamentalism and extremism.
mheslep
Aug31-11, 11:30 AM
...While the premise may not have been well-supported until later in the thread, the sentiment is hardly something new. Sentiment? That sounds like an "everyone knows it's true" , or argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) attempt.
Are we looking at different posts? I clearly see comparisons of Republicans with Democrats and Independents.Posts with more hand waiving assertion that Republicans are this, and Democrats are that do not equate to "support[ed] with numerous examples". The latter is the claim which I (and others) contested.
Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?
It's hard to find good data on what percent of Americans are atheist.
The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion, of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%)...
Now, that's from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism), but I think it sounds about right.
So if less than 2% of the population self-identifies as atheist, and some ~40% of the population self-identify as Democrats...then yes, you have misunderstood.
It's hard to find good data on what percent of Americans are atheist.
Now, that's from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism), but I think it sounds about right.
So if less than 2% of the population self-identifies as atheist, and some ~40% of the population self-identify as Democrats...then yes, you have misunderstood.
I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?
I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?
On the other hand - I suppose there a few that would like to qualify?:smile:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH
"Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ"
While there certainly are many Godless dems, pretty much all [most] Democratic politicians at the national level are religious. The difference is that religion doesn't define their platform.
It's that whole separation of church and State nonsense. :biggrin:
I would add that the Dems are not in jeopardy of losing the evangelical vote as they would never get it anyway. That about says it all. This isn't about religion, it is about fundamentalism and extremism.
I basically agree. To be fair - I don't see where religion has defined Governor Perry's initiatives in Texas.
http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/
""We are focusing on areas that are most essential to an improved quality of life, pursuing advancements in safety, education, economic development, infrastructure & resource management, and personal well-being." - Gov. Rick Perry"
I don't think the vast majority (of the 40%) consider themselves Left Wing Liberals - do they?
There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats
There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats
Fair enough - I imagine some Far-Left Wing Liberals might be Socialist - wasn't trying to be that specific.
mheslep
Aug31-11, 12:25 PM
The thread started with an excerpt from a column, here's another. This is a general response to the science and politics issue from Dawkins and others by author/columnist Kevin Williamson. It is aggressive, but no more so than Dawkin's column.
Rick Perry Pushes Their Buttons
The questions put to Governor Perry are political, not scientific. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275093/rick-perry-pushes-their-buttons-kevin-d-williamson)
Williamson rehashes some of Perry's statements about the theory of evolution, but his point begins here:
...The broader question, however, is: Why would anybody ask a politician about his views on a scientific question? Nobody ever asks what Sarah Palin thinks about dark matter, or what John Boehner thinks about quantum entanglement. (For that matter, I’ve never heard Keith Ellison pressed for his views on evolution.) There are lots of good reasons not to wonder what Rick Perry thinks about scientific questions, foremost amongst them that there are probably fewer than 10,000 people in the United States whose views on disputed questions regarding evolution are worth consulting, and they are not politicians; they are scientists. In reality, of course, the progressive types who want to know politicians’ views on evolution are not asking a scientific question; they are asking a religious and political question, demanding a profession of faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview.
Take the question of global warming: Jon Huntsman was quick to declare his faith in the scientific consensus on global warming, and Rick Perry has been openly skeptical of it. Again keeping in mind that nobody really ought to care what either Huntsman or Perry thinks about the relevant science, both are making an error, and a grave one, in conceding that the question at hand is scientific at all. It is not; it is political. One might be convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a real and problematic phenomenon, and still not be convinced that the policies being pushed by Al Gore et al. are wise and intelligent.
followed by some examination of the other side:
...If you want to see how dedicated a progressive is to dispassionate science, spend two minutes talking about the heritability of intelligence. You’ll be up to your neck in witchcraft and superstition and evasion in no time at all. (If you want to test a progressive’s faith in rigorous scholarship more broadly, ask him about gains from trade and comparative advantage, realities that are as solid as anything social science has to offer.)...
Well the Right Wing Conservative Republicans (based on this thread) are clearly labeled as religious - believe in God. I'm assuming the Left Wing Liberal Democrats want to not be associated with God - thus God-less Dems - have I misunderstood?
Yes, you have misunderstood, and you have used a logical fallacy to boot.
Being a Christian does not necessitate that you reject science, that you reject evolution. Being a Christian does not necessitate that you vote hard right. That being a Christian mandates that one reject evolution, and thereby reject all of science, is only true for a small faction of Christians who do not represent the people of this nation, who do not represent the ideals of the people who founded our nation, and who do not define what Christianity really is. These self-entitled Christians have IMO hijacked the Republican party.
This thread would not exist if the Republicans themselves were not pushing this issue by making evolution a required question at multiple debates amongst Republican candidates.
This thread would not exist if multiple Republican candidates did not freely offer their rejection of evolution, and of science in general, in public speeches because they instead hold steadfast to some pre-scientific mythology.
The Democrats are not making this an issue. It is the hijacked Republicans who are making this an issue.
Yes, you have misunderstood, and you have used a logical fallacy to boot.
Being a Christian does not necessitate that you reject science, that you reject evolution. Being a Christian does not necessitate that you vote hard right. That being a Christian mandates that one reject evolution, and thereby reject all of science, is only true for a small faction of Christians who do not represent the people of this nation, who do not represent the ideals of the people who founded our nation, and who do not define what Christianity really is. These self-entitled Christians have IMO hijacked the Republican party.
This thread would not exist if the Republicans themselves were not pushing this issue by making evolution a required question at multiple debates amongst Republican candidates.
This thread would not exist if multiple Republican candidates did not freely offer their rejection of evolution, and of science in general, in public speeches because they instead hold steadfast to some pre-scientific mythology.
The Democrats are not making this an issue. It is the hijacked Republicans who are making this an issue.
How are the Republicans "making this an issue" - are they writing the news stories or is the media making this an issue?
Ivan Seeking
Aug31-11, 01:16 PM
There's a difference between Democrats and left-wing liberals. Not all Democrats are left-wing liberals, and not all left-wing liberals are democrats
Heh, that's a good point. The most lefty person I know hates the Democrats and the Republicans almost equally. In fact, he's a Marxist.
In his view, Obama is just another puppet for big business.
Heh, that's a good point. The most lefty person I know hates the Democrats and the Republicans almost equally. In fact, he's a Marxist.
In his view, Obama is just another puppet for big business.
I guess we all know a few extreme Left (and Right) types.
My favorite far-left liberal is a college professor. He hates ALL politicians and Government in general. Ironically, he takes comfort in his tenure. He's been known to put his feet up and nap in front of a lecture hall with 400 students - just doesn't care and the students love him.
Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”
That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales?
You can be born Catholic, so idenitfy as a Catholic when asked what your religion is, but that doesn't mean that you attend Mass or aren't agnostic. I was born Roman Catholic, will tell people I'm catholic, but I am also an atheist. Go figure.
Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?
"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)
russ_watters
Aug31-11, 05:43 PM
Russ, this is ridiculous. Some extremists brought up the fact that McCain was born in a militarily controlled territory, and not US soil. That was bound to fail, and I think all rational voters thought so, regardless of whether they favored McCain or not. It still happened, turbo, "bound to fail" or not.None of this compares to what we've seen from the right. It is a matter of proportion. There have always been extreme elements on both sides. That does not explain what we've seen from the right wing in recent years.There was never any "conspiracy" -- he was, in fact, born in Panama.
Your argument of "Well, the dems do it too!" is extremely weak, since any comparison between what a blogger or two wrote about McCain, and what happened with those batsh!t crazy birthers...it just makes the birthers look even more nutty.I'm reasonably certain the three of you have challenged me on this before and as before, I'll point out that the McCain "birther" issue was big enough to make it into mainstream news. It is factually wrong to claim that it was just "a blogger or two".
russ_watters
Aug31-11, 05:54 PM
You sure can be anti-something you don't know anything about; in fact, especially so. The cold war was a great example. Fear of the Soviets and all of their evil agendas, and visa versa, was based largely on ignorance. The Red Scare was based on ignorance. In the case of science, about the only way to be anti-science is to be ignorant. Wow, Ivan, the cold war? I'll give you props for going grand and obscure, but to claim that we knew nothing about the Soviets? To call that nonsense would win me the most charitable post of the day award! You seem to be suggesting that a majority or unusually high percentage of Republicans might be ignorant. Certainly! Every single person on earth is ignorant of a great many things and in the US, ignorance of science is a national epidemic. And to what degree does this cognitive dissonance result in the desire to teach intelligent design, or creationism, along with that other little theory, evolution, in public schools? I don't know, but logically I don't see why one would exclude the other. The more important question, IMO, is if electing Perry will actually result in ID being taught in school. If there isn't much chance of that, then this isn't an issue worthy of discussion before the coming election. Other issues that will actually matter actually matter more! The problem is not just belief but the resulting political agenda. Well you're the first I've seen in here claiming that ID in and of itself is a big enough political issue to be concerned about. Others have suggested only that it is a bellwhether/benchmark. You're certainly free to believe that, but IMO, the economy is much more important - so much more important that ID isn't on my radar at all as a serious political issue. And if a person can so casually oscillate between faith and fact according to the issue, then they really can't be very rational in the first place. There is nothing at all casual about a strong religious conviction. How can someone be pro-science but only accept overwhelming evidence when it's convenient? This only shows that logic might be abandoned at any turn in favor of a warm and fuzzy feeling. How is that not anti-science? Again, religion encroaches on science only in very specific issues. I've met many a religious person who'se anti-science stance was strictly confined. We've seen such people on this forum. Obviously a lot of people do believe it's significant and not a game. You are voicing an opinion [a belief], not a fact. Of course.
On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?:uhh:
http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm
"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
On the other hand, might Dawkins someday support ID?:uhh:
http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm
"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
Where's the rest of his quote? That higher intelligence would, itself, have had to have come about by some explicable, ultimately explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point. Nice try but no cigar.:tongue2:
This has also been debunked, Ben Stein was interviwing scientists under false pretenses. They were asked to make their wildest speculations on life on earth.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
We have the debunking here in an old thread.
Claims that film producers misled intervieweesThe movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,[63] Shermer,[28] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:[64][65][66]
The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes (later improved to 10% overall) where the film was summarized thus: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary." Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.[7][13][14] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[15] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[7]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.[17] The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.
Yeah, stooping to lies and fraud to take information out of context. A truly great representation of ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_film _producers_misled_interviewees
WhoWee, I'm so disappointed, I thought you researched things for fraud before you posted them. :frown:
OmCheeto
Aug31-11, 09:38 PM
Who says Catholics don't apply a scientific method to their faith?
"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, but we're trying to find the error bars on that number ..."
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (+/- 2)
Perhaps that's what I'm looking for. Some people are just too serious.
Some of the people I admire most are devoutly religious. Some of the people I admire the least are devoutly religious. So I guess religion has nothing to do with it.
Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes....., except in your case."
Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.
OmCheeto
Sep1-11, 09:44 AM
Om; "Do you guys still believe in creationism?"
Bruce; "Yes....., except in your case."
Bruce is, and always has been, my hero.
Anti-Om; "Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?"
It sure looks like it. But in trying to reconcile my duplicity in the matter by googling feverishly this morning, guided by the hand of god obviously, I ran across many messages, both from him/her/it, and earthly mortals.
I ran across Ivan's recount of G.W.'s revelations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml), God message #1 (http://tonightsforecastdark.blogspot.com/2011/08/god-speaks-to-rick-perry-through-church.html), God message #2 (http://ottumwacourier.com/letters/x1699203010/Message-from-God-on-Rick-Perry), a commentary which ended with the quote by Sinclair Lewis; “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”, which struck me as kind of mean spirited. But the last two things I ran across, which were linked by author, kind of showed me the difference between Rick and Bruce.
The first was an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, apparently questioning Perry's sincerity/motives: Is Rick Perry as Christian as He Thinks He Is? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/is-rick-perry-as-christian-as-he-thinks-he-is/243616/)
I'd never heard of K.K.Townsend before, so I googled her, and discovered she wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/Failing-Americas-Faithful-Churches-Politics/dp/B001JJBOHO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314884898&sr=1-1)*. The little review kind of summed up my feelings on the matter:
Two-term Maryland lieutenant governor Townsend makes a valid point: in America, faith is no longer about community. She longs for the Catholic Church of her youth, that "dealt with issues at the core of the Gospel—suffering, injustice, sickness, and poverty" rather than a Christianity influenced by a crop of preachers who seem to believe that "Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and cared for the poor just so we don't have to."
Bruce is not a hypocrite.
*Available at Amazon.com for the heavenly price of only $2.07
NeoDevin
Oct19-11, 12:21 AM
More science denialism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu):
Rick Perry's administration commissions a report by scientists on the state of Galveston Bay, then proceeds to delete everything about sea level rise, warming, and wetlands destruction (including the actual measurements). Any mention of human causes for any of these was removed. Go here (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report) for a line by line comparison before and after.
every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document
Edited to add: I don't see any possible way that burying your head in the sand can result in sound economic policy. These changes will have real effects on the local economy, and denying them can't possibly improve decision making.
ThomasT
Oct27-11, 12:49 PM
Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.
Char. Limit
Oct27-11, 12:53 PM
Apologies if this post isn't on-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread for it and this seems to be the best place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html
When I saw the headline I immediately thought "oh god, they're trotting out that old horse again?". But reading the article, this looks less like Perry being a birther and more like Parade giving him leading questions. Your thoughts?
Perry has apparently recently decided to opt out of most of the future Republican debates. Probably a good decision. He's, apparently, a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge. As is Romney. Paul is, I think a relative heavyweight compared to those two. Unfortunately, I think that some of Paul's economic proposals/cuts would be extremely damaging to the general economy.
my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?
ThomasT
Oct27-11, 01:06 PM
Apologies if this post isn't on-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread for it and this seems to be the best place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perrys-birther-parade/2011/10/24/gIQAyFRNDM_story.html
When I saw the headline I immediately thought "oh god, they're trotting out that old horse again?". But reading the article, this looks less like Perry being a birther and more like Parade giving him leading questions. Your thoughts?Yeah, of course Parade is biased and so is Perry. What else is new? Bottom line, imo, is that Perry's a lightweight (even though he undoubtedly has a forceful personality ... but I think you know what I mean). And, I wil not vote for somebody who I consider to be a lightweight for any public office.
ThomasT
Oct27-11, 01:13 PM
my bold
Please clarify your inclusion of Romney - why is he "a lightweight wrt the depth and breadth of his knowledge"?I just haven't heard him expound on anything in any way that I think indicates that he has a deep or broad knowledge, wrt anything, of the sort that I would want a prospective president to have.
He looks good, has a nice personality, and lots of money. That's about it. But of course that's enough to get elected.
EDIT: Of course, I don't know that he's a lightweight. He just seems like one ... to me.
EDIT2: And I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Is lack of understanding of basic science (and/or an effort to sabotage the public school science curriculum) a deal breaker for you?
Yes.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.