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

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[lisab]

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]

me three.

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]

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]

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.

 

[chiro]

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]

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 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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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) 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.

 

[lisab]

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) 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.

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

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."

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.



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

 

[Evo]

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."

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.



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

I 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.

 

[lisab]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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.

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]

...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 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.

 

[lisab]

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 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.