News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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...").

 

[WhoWee]

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."

 

[WhoWee]

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).

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

There is no hope for this country.

 

[turbo]

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.

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.

 

[mege]

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 argument 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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

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/rickung...ve-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/rickung...ve-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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[mege]

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 truly 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/rickung...ve-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]

... 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]

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]

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.

 

[mege]

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 truly 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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

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 truly 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'.)

 

[mege]

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]

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]

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.