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

[D H]

I was going to ask the same thing when I saw the Balkans almost white.

The Balkans are grey: No data.

 

[WhoWee]

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."

 

[D H]

France looks a little pale also. hmmm... What does the 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."”

 

[daveb]

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 "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY"" (an awesome movie, btw).

 

[WhoWee]

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 "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?

 

[D H]

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).

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

...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]

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 ). 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]

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]

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 let's 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]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[MarcoD]

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, [STRIKE]and you seem to subscribe to that,[/STRIKE] 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.

 

[Evo]

Even with all of that, however, what do these test scores have to do with ID?

No one said they were.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?
"You could try pointing out some potential Republican candidates that are competent..."/I]

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Newai]

...
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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/"

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]

I wish we actually had the power to do that.

See, we can agree on something!

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Evo]

Does God want Romney to balance the budget? Does his belief in creation give us any insight?

Does he talk to god too? 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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

I don't think the moderate Dems, Independents, or moderate Repubs care that he's a Mormon.

 

[Evo]

Clinton certainly embraced women - Hillary might've been the friend of women's rights?

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]

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

 

[turbo]

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]

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 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]

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 [STRIKE]abortion[/STRIKE] (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/polit...imate-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.

 

[Evo]

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]

Did you get that backwards?

Eek! I meant the death penalty. Fixing now.

 

[Evo]

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!

 

[russ_watters]

This has been supported with numerous examples up-thread already.

No, it hasn't:

For more evidence that republicans, as a group, deny reality:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-republicans-doubt-evolution-27915/"

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]

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 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]

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.

 

[turbo]

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]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.