Opening Up the Creationism/Evolution Can of Worms
December 5th, 2007 at 04:25am Mark Noonan
As Huckabee has surged in support - almost certainly from Evangelical Christians enlisting on his side - some people seem determined to add Creationism vs Evolution to the political debate:
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools.
Huckabee - who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution - asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.
“I believe God created the heavens and the Earth,” he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, “Amen.”
“I wasn’t there when he did it, so how he did it, I don’t know,” Huckabee said.
But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn’t matter what his personal views are.
“That’s an irrelevant question to ask me - I’m happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what’s going to be taught in 50 different states,” Huckabee said. “Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are.”
The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?
Why? Because if there is a God which not only created but guided the development of the universe, then most liberal/left ideology wouldn’t be worth a pitcher of warm spit. On the left it is (barely) ok for there to be a God - but this God must be rather vague…a First Cause, perhaps, but not an entity which has a specific plan for His creation and a willingness to intervene from time to time to set things on the right course. Go beyond a First Cause sort of God and before you know it you might have someone getting ten hard and fast rules and, worse, an Incarnate Diety who tells people precisely what is right and what is wrong and how they are to live - you might get the anti-liberal silver bullet: absolute Truth.
Truth is pesky - it can’t be argued with, you see? Have truth and you just have to adhere to it, or admit to all and sundry that you prefer lies. Its the sort of thing which makes a lefty go bonkers…so, better to just not have truth, and demand that anything which proclaims truth be relegated to entirely outside the public square.
Be that as it may, whomever has decided that pestering Huckabee with Creationism questions is making a rather large mistake. Not for nothing did the Founders ban any religious test for office. In the Founders wisdom, it doesn’t matter if person worships a rock or thinks the Moon is made of green cheese - the personal religious beliefs of a person simply cannot be used to deny them public office. By making an issue of Creationism, a religious test is subtly being created - the concept being that anyone who believes in a Creator is not really fit to be in office. Its already being done with Romney and his Mormon faith, now its also being done with Huckabee and his Evangelical Christian faith - but the sword cuts two ways and the left won’t like it when Democrats are pressed to square their professed religion with policy prescriptions which directly violate specific rules of their faith.
It would be better, I think, if such matters are left out of Presidential politics - but, sadly, I think we’re way past the time when anything could be considered out of bounds.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Religion, Republicans
58 Comments
1. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 5th, 2007 at 5:46 am
I’m not into Huckabee; I think he’s too liberal to be our nominee. He’s a nice guy, a social conservative, but his record on immigration and taxes isn’t so good.
However, if he wins the nomination, I refuse to sit on my hands like so many voters did in ‘06. Any warm Republican body would be better than Hitlery, Earbama, or Silky…
2. OhioOrrin | December 5th, 2007 at 7:15 am
true - the Lord God can use ANY method, known or unknown, to create existence & life…including evolution (or more correctly, selective adaptation).
“oh wait, Ohio, the Bible doesn’t say that”
we could go thru an unresolvable debate on translation…my school-teacher/pastor father preferred to read his in Greek claiming english failed to correctly, or fully capture meaning.
but more to the point, do u actually believe the Bible contains EVERYTHING about the Lord God?…everything?
do u believe there will always remain things about the Lord God we are incapable of ever understanding(?)…despite the Bible.
the Lord God operates in mysterious ways…
3. Christian Wright | December 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Many people of faith believe a god or gods created the Big Bang and let life evolve from that.
I don’t see how evolution and faith conflict. The only conflict is between evolution and dogma. If a person beleives everything in the Bible, then they must beleive that slavery is moral, because the Bible accepts slavery.
4. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 7:37 am
We had many Presidents that had faith. That should not be an issue
G.W Bush is very consistant and that is a very important trait for a President. With the U.S.A being a strong force in foreign policy around the world. Changing posititions frequently could be misleading and create disaster
Mike is a solid consistant conservative. I feel Rudy and Mitt are the libs, their stance on gay marriage, abortion, guns, change with the wind. Immigration is Federal issue that hasn’t been addressed or enforced. For a state to issue stricter enforcement than the Feds, ACLU and similar groups would have brought endless lawsuits to his state. The issue needs to be delt with, and Mike’s plan is good. He cut taxes 94 times, cut spending in a state with 85% Democrats. I’ll vote Ron Paul if that is the Republican they put up there. Everyday that goes by the direction the democrats want to take the country looks more like European style socialism.
5. Christian Wright | December 5th, 2007 at 7:59 am
The thing we should be talking about is his 1999 release of Wayne Dumond. Dumond was sentenced for raping a woman who happened to be Bill Clinton’s cousin.
The Christian Right said the rape never happened and put pressure on Huckabee to release Dumond. Huckabee received letters from other rape victims claiming he would rape and kill his next victims if released. Huckabee bowed to political pressure from the Christian Right and released him. Dumond went on to rape and murder two more women before he was captured. One of the women was pregnant with her first child.
We don’t want a president who is weak. Any person that lets a known rapist go for political gain is weak and without moral integrity.
6. plainjane | December 5th, 2007 at 8:01 am
On the left it is (barely) ok for there to be a God. December 5th, 2007 at 04:25am Mark Noonan
So glad you are so right with yourself that you have cornered the market on God. Why is it impossible God created the heavens and also created evolution to guide His creation?
I think the Huckster has more important issues to worry about today. Now that he is a front runner the press is starting to dig into his past. Seems he commuted the sentence of a serial rapist. For those running for President serial should mean he did it over and over again and given another chance will do it again. Which he did once Huckabee, ignored letters of victims and let him out of prison.
Now I will need some clarification. In a previous thread Democrats were accused of negative campaigns. I assume, should the Huckster get the nomination, it would be ok to run Republican approved Willy Horton type ads; showing the results of Huckabee’s decision making process via victims of Wayne Dumond in graphic detail.
7. coulterfan | December 5th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Just to clarify, Mark, are you implying that you don’t care at all about a person’s religious beliefs when running for office? If Hillary or Obama were an atheist or a Muslim, you would bristle as badly if a reporter asked them whether their religious beliefs (or lack of) should be taught in school? What about the question posed to Kucinich about seeing UFOs- was that also irrelevant? If Kucinich believed that UFOs were responsible for human existence (as Scientologists do)- you wouldn’t want the press to ask about it?
I can’t see how questions about teaching creationism in schools constitutes a religious test, anymore than if we to ask a Muslim running for office his views on women in society (and education). Merely being informed about a candidate’s beliefs is NOT the same as requiring a person to be Christian in order to be President. (though I would bet that SOME on this board WOULD impose a religious test in that they would NEVER vote for a non-Christian for President)
8. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Christian Wright
Do you got any links to this Huckabee info
9. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 9:55 am
>>>>Just to clarify, Mark, are you implying that you don’t care at all about a person’s religious beliefs when running for office? - coulter<<<<<
That’s pretty much correct coulter. I thought you, and other liberals believed in the seperation of church and state? So, if that’s the case, why would the media even ask such questions in the absence of any concrete evidence that those beliefs affected the political decisions of the candidate?
Liberals seem to be afraid of God, and maybe they should be.
10. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Here’s a little more light shed on the liberals baseless assertion that Huckabee opened up the prison cell and escorted Dumond to freedom:
DuMond, 55, was castrated while awaiting trial for the 1984 rape of Ashley Stephens of Forrest City. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. But in 1992 then-Gov. Jim Guy Tucker commuted the sentence to 39 1/2 years, making DuMond eligible for parole.
After his release in 1999, DuMond moved to the Kansas City, Mo., suburb of Smithville and was later convicted of killing a woman in her apartment. Tuesday, DuMond lost an appeal in that case.
Shortly after taking office in 1996, Gov. Mike Huckabee said he intended to reduce DuMond’s sentence to time served - about 11 years at the time. The governor ended up rejecting DuMond’s parole request, which would have freed DuMond without conditions. He signed the decision moments after the Arkansas parole board granted DuMond a parole on condition that another state take him.
11. Almiranta | December 5th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Damn you, neocon, for injecting facts into a perfectly good radical Lib rant!!!
BTW, did anyone ever get plainjane that saucer of milk? Her claws are out again, and as usual the only discernable reason is a desire to indulge in mindless spite and malice. (Janie, your fawning dependence on the term “Huckster” is so far from witty, it really just brands you as a Hatester.)
The attempt to stir up hysteria about actions taken by Huckabee while he was a governor remind me of the wild-eyed, spittle-flying, hysteria trumped up by the same mouthbreathing Libs over Bush “killing people” in Texas. Who CARED that Bush merely enacted the law and the will of the people, as dictated by his oath of office?
Fortunately for y’all, you seem to be ready to elect a person who has never ever EVER made the wrong decision about anything. How too too lucky for you.
As for religion, there is clearly a Constutional requirement that there be no religious test for qualification for public office. While there is no Consitutional requirement of separation between church and state, there is a ban on making a religious test a prerequisite for public office.
I never saw the radical Left getting into a tizzy when their own candidates actually campaigned IN churches, and had the pastors instruct the congregation, from the pulpit, to vote for them. I didn’t see any objection from them when the Adulterer-in-Chief hauled in a passel of various ministers to “pray with me” in an effort to convince the Religious Left that he was truly remorseful for his latest (known) foray into illicit sex.
No, religion is only an issue when it can be seen as a possible weapon to use against a conservative.
12. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
How many here know that Harry Reid is a Mormon? Funny but I have never seen that brought up in the MSM.
13. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Almiranta,
Great recall. I had almost forgotten about the Bible-toting Clinton at every Sunday service and praying with Jesse jackson in the WH following the Lewinsky debacle.
What a joke
14. plainjane | December 5th, 2007 at 11:12 am
He signed the decision moments after the Arkansas parole board granted DuMond a parole on condition that another state take him.
neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Thanks for the additional facts. So if your facts are indeed true you are saying Huckabee dumped his filth and problem on unsuspecting people of another state. Nice guy.
Some of the facts conveniently omitted include Dumond’s initial rape victim was a distant relative of President Bill Clinton. Thus the good upstanding wingers of Arkansas, including many in the religious community felt he was railroaded. The Huckster wilted like a cheap suit, caved to the political pressure and granted the pardon ignoring letters from victims stating if released Dumond would rape again.
15. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
plainjane,
Huckabee didn’t “pardon” anyone. Unbelievable how you just threw that in, and then you wonder why we detest liberal dishonesty. That’s a blatant lie and I expect a retraction from you.
You obviously did not read the last sentence:
>>>>>>>He signed the decision moments after the Arkansas parole board granted DuMond a parole on condition that another state take him.<<<<<<<<
The parole board is the one that made the decision to grant parole on the condition that he move to another state, not Huckabee.
JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL LIE!!!!!!!
FROM THE LYING LIARS!!!!!!
16. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Mark,
Please. You either know that what you’ve written here is the most clumsy “conservative” propaganda or you’re so deeply in thrall of Those Who Are Good, Those Who Know and Who Are Here to Protect Us currently in the Executive Branch that you’re unwilling to tolerate any examination of the Inherent Goodness of Conservative Belief.
Of course, the man of straw you’re working over in your matching Everlast ™ gloves and trunks here is the supposed stark difference between conservatives and liberals. Given that this blog is dedicated to the Republican Party exclusively, I believe that it would be safe to say that you are making something along the lines of the following argument - Liberals don’t believe in the Christian conception of God (”…this God must be very vague…”) and liberals don’t vote for Republicans, therefore, people who profess a belief in an “Incarnate Deity” do not vote for Republicans. As you should know, this is complete nonsense.
In the last 14 U. S. presidential elections, the majority of your fellow Roman Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate in all but 3 years with the last one being when they went big for Ronald Reagan in 1984. The Republican Party has made focused efforts to woo Catholic voters, seeing the abortion issue as a lever, with real success in 2000 and 2004. However, in both those years the majority of Catholics voters (52%) still voted for the Democratic candidate. (Source: http://www.religionlink.org/tip_060717.php#background) and, as recently as 2005, Catholics affiliated themselves with Democrats over Republicans 41% to 37% (Source: http://www.catholicmediareport.org/story.php?story_id=20) Given recent overall declines in Americans identifying themselves as Republicans, that last figure is very possibly more tilted towards the Democratic Party today.
Well, I don’t know about you, but the last time I went to Mass at St. Bernadette Catholic Church in Houston (http://www.stbchurch.org/) with my next older brother (you remember, one of my three siblings who are all Army veterans and all opposed to our presence in Iraq), we all recited the Nicene Creed (”We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth…”). That would also be the same Nicene Creed that I say each Sunday in the Episcopal Church and which I accept fully. Of course, you can try to rescue your attempt at playing the “anti-liberal silver bullet: absolute Truth” card by heaving your fellow Catholics over the side and somehow claiming that they’re not really members of the Body of Christ, that they just mouth the words of the creed without really believing them and that’s fine. There’s a historical precedent for that and I’m sure you could look to Tomás de Torquemada for some guidance along that line.
Sorry, but to borrow from the Bard, I would submit to you as Hamlet did:
P.S. I find it really, really difficult to believe that the God who made everything and loves you so passionately that He sent his Only Beloved Son to take on human flesh and ultimately be crucified by the Roman authorities only to be raised alive so that you might live wastes one moment of His contemplation of His Creation to care whether you or anyone else voted for George W. Bush or John F. Kerry in 2004.
P.P.S. One practical difficulty for the GOP in attracting Catholics may be the easy-to-find anti-Catholic sentiment among Evangelical Christians such as this:
(my emphasis added)
17. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am
My apologies, I forgot to cite the source of the last quote in my post which is this:
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=2210
18. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I agree that the Founding Fathers wanted a separation of church and state. That a President’s religous beliefs (or lack of) should not matter.
But when the President pushes his beliefs on the lawmaking process then we have a problem.
If the President says there should be more focus on abstinance rather than safe sex in our education system and abstinance has been proven to be less than effective in regards to unwanted pregnancy which leads to abortions or children being raised poorly with bad parents who have no money then we have a problem. That President has pushed his religion into the laws that are passed. The president may also choose people who fall in line with his ideology, like with an appointed person who is in charge of health education. Or science education who believes in creationism rather than evolutionism.
In my opinion the Athiests aren’t the ones being irrational and unscientific. Waging wars based on religion.
But saying that all “lefties” are not religous isn’t being very fair buddy. I am a lefty and I find myself to be religous in a different way from Christians. I believe that Jesus Christ did exist as a person who taught peace and tolerance. He is not supernatural, not a spirit that can effect our lives (we are the ones who do that), and God is everything that is in this world. Jesus was no different than Martin Luther King or any other peaceful teacher/leader in our history. The story of his life and teachings have been manipulated and politized by the churchs for their own purposes.
My view on heaven and hell? It is where you are at any given moment while you are alive that determines whether you have one or the other. It’s not something you earn when you die. It’s something you dwell in every second of you life depending on your own personal actions which are of your own choice. And all this does is make me work harder to be a good person with all my actions every day of my life. If I do this, I am happy. If not, I am not happy. Seems pretty simple to me.
19. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
SteaM,
I could never vote for you for any office based on your religious beliefs. I would worry that you would appoint others who believe the same that you do, and that might make political decisions based on that belief.
Which war was waged based on religion?
Do you have a problem with even the mention of abstinence in sex ed classes?
Secondly, the curriculum of any school is set by the school boards of the local districts and communities, not by the President or his cabinet. So, you can put to rest your whiny liberal concerns.
20. Almiranta | December 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
SteaM, in a stereotypically liberal meander, starts off with this: “I agree that the Founding Fathers wanted a separation of church and state.”
Agree with WHOM, SteaM? Not with the Constitution, that’s for sure.
Funniest thing about the Founding Fathers. While they had lots and lots of independent views on lots and lots of issues, when it came to putting down their visions of the best form of government for this country, they were clear, concise, specific, and unambiguous, and those clearly stated rules did not always reflect the personal FEELINGS of all of them.
Evidently the FF were not Liberals, as they did not allow EMOTION to dictate the establishment of what were to be the ruling concepts of this nation. So they left their FEELINGS out. This is why you can sometimes find a letter or a quote from one of them about his feelings, or personal opinion, while the actual content of the Constitution does not include the same sentiment.
This is why the CONSTITUTION has absolutely NO reference to what you Lefties love to call “the separation of church and state”.
It says, clearly and unambiguously, that Congress shall ESTABLISH no religion. It goes on to say that there shall be no state religion, or religious requirement or test.
This is vastly different from claiming that there shall be no religious influence or involvement with government.
SteaM can have his non-demanding form of what he calls his religion, so conveniently asking nothing of him other than he merely be SteaMy. If SteaM chooses to believe in something which has no higher goal than he feel good, so be it. Our Constitution says that his unfortunately common “religion” of self-indulgence and egocentrism can’t be used to exclude him from public office. But neither can a religion which believes that the Earth was created in any specific length of time, or that God is our Mother and resides in the Earth.
This is not in any way the same as saying that the Founding Fathers did not want religion in any form to have any role in the governing of our nation, or that religion should be kept separate from such governing. I am not sure if the efforts to confabulate the two come from a simple ignorance of the actual wording of the Constitution, the inability to process the information in that wording, a general dislike for religion, or an effort to substitute one belief system for another–in this case, the belief system in the State rather than in God.
21. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
This is why we must have an informed citizenry who has a say in their representative government. We must have a public forum where we can speak our minds to our leaders. We must comprimise in regards to religous beliefs and also not forget abour being tolerant. We must have oversight. We must hold our leaders accountable.
22. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
16. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Question here. If my short follow-up post to this went through instantly and there are subsequent posts in the thread, are comments being moderated or not? I know that Male Zampolit Dittohead4Life!!! complained elsewhere about some comments (not mine, interestingly…) so I’m just trying to know if I’m wasting keystrokes or not.
23. plainjane | December 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I used the wrong term. You are correct. He did not pardon him. He simply let him out on parole because of political pressure to rape again. My apologies.
24. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
-” but the sword cuts two ways and the left won’t like it when Democrats are pressed to square their professed religion with policy prescriptions which directly violate specific rules of their faith.”
This is a great point the author makes, there needs to be a data base with this stuff on file. So we can access libpocrisy!
Like our President said in his speech yesterday “The Democrats can’t pass bills because they are on both sides of the issue.”
I think the President’s faith helps him focus clearly on the issues. Right now it is Iran enriching uranium. Instead of immoral orgies, or wild drinking binges, Our President is focusing on protecting our allies. If Iran was going to give up the nukes for solar, wind, or Hydroelectric. America would not need a presence in the region. But if you look at the cost to the U.S.A to secure Pakistans nuclear facilities when the country looked unstable, You’ll see it cost all of us quite a bit. So by Iranian wanting to become a nuclear power. The U.S and its allies have an obligation to make sure that Iran is not going to follow thru on those threats to wipe Israel of the map. And a long term U.S presence will be in the region to make sure those kind of threats are not fulfilled. To say “let’s pack up and leave we are done” like Harry Reid wants to do. Is the most irresponsible thing I have ever heard. The Region must either pressure Iran to go solar or help foot the bill for the American support of monitoring, protecting facilities and allies.
neacon , Almiranta: great posts
25. phnx | December 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“My view on heaven and hell? It is where you are at any given moment while you are alive that determines whether you have one or the other. It’s not something you earn when you die. It’s something you dwell in every second of you life depending on your own personal actions which are of your own choice. And all this does is make me work harder to be a good person with all my actions every day of my life. If I do this, I am happy. If not, I am not happy. Seems pretty simple to me.” SteaM
As you say, its your view, and if that gives you a warm fuzzy, great. Scripture does not support your view.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8,9
26. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
SteaM,
Actually, you demonstrate my point - Jesus was just a good teacher, God isn’t involved directly in our lives, we are able to set ourselves up by our own actions; that is the leftwing God…a God of nothing; you can choose to be good, or choose to be bad, and neither choice is actually wrong. And if one were to place into the public square a God who is Lord of Creation, that would mess up your whole worldview because it would demand that you actually do what God commands you to do.
You, of course, are free to hold to whatever beliefs you want - the problem is coming in where those of us who do believe in a Lord of Creation are being forced out of the public square. Questions about Romney’s faith, questions about Huckabee’s faith - these are hateful attacks upon religious belief; that they are couched in soft terms - at present - isn’t the issue…they shouldn’t be happening at all.
27. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
plain,
What I would like to know is why you keep that much hatred inside yourself that you have stored up muck to throw at the first opportunity…you bring in an entirely off topic matter (Huckabee’s record as governor) just so you can throw some muck…
28. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Oops, my bad - Sorry, Plain; that was Christian who brought it up first. Please apply my statement to you to him.
29. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Coulter,
What is at issue in elections are the issues being brought up plus the overall character of the people running for office.
We want to know if the people running are honest and brave…and we want to know how they’ll deal with the varied problems our nation faces. We don’t need to know if a Moslem canddiate believes Mohammad rode a magical horse from Medina to Jerusalem; we don’t need to know if a Jewish candidate believes that manna fell from heaven; we don’t need to know if a Christian candidate believes in the Real Presence - and we don’t need to know if a candidate thinks the world 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old; its irrelevant.
30. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
“hateful attacks upon religious belief…they shouldn’t be happening at all.”
Mark,
I agree with you here. Next time someone is elected to congress or president that is Muslim or Athiest I hope you can practice what you preach.
31. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Mark,
My profound apologies. You can read and reread something you’ve written and still muck it up. In my post # 16 what I meant to write was not this:
(my new emphasis)
What I meant to write was this:
(my new emphasis)
I do apologize for the hash-up of my own thinking there.
32. js | December 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
People will fight about religion forever, or at least until they die and find out what the truth is. Does your spirit live on, if so, then that compounds evolution manyfold if God does not exist.
Even without death, the odds that all this world, everything we know, evolved from a single cell, a single goof of a molecule that started a chain of life, and resulted in such a complex life form is tremendously high, against it. Science has its work cut out to prove it is true, but so far, all they have provided evidence of was a possibility. Last I checked, possibilities were not empirical science, but fallible guesses made by fallible men.
Whats worse is that whenever they are challenged, they will not concede the possibility that thier evolutionary theory is wrong. Instead, they attack religion, they attack the religious, they attack God, they attack everything but the truth, which, if it is true, means that no court of law should or could accept evolution as empirical science.
anything less is hypocricy, that is what our legal system is
33. Aitch | December 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I guess if a pe(r)son wo(r)shipped a (r)ock that in itself could not be used to deny a pe(r)son public office. But who would vote fo(r) a pe(r)son that wo(r)ships a (r)ock? Huckabee’s not being denied public office. He’s al(r)eady se(r)ved in public office.
34. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
If you have a child that was raised in religous schools. His parents move because of a job transfer. Now the child is in a public school that is telling him every belief he was raised with is a fairy tale and wrong. What does that do to a childs mind?. Makes them feel confused, rebel, feel foolish, then even act foolish.
What would be so bad about teaching evolution in a comparitive religion class instead of science. Science like chemistry, is hard fact, like math always the same result. Science like geology, and astronomy is alot more guessing and estimates. Why teach the THEORY of evolution that tries to answer where we came from. Teach it with other exclamations of where we came from in a comparitive religion class. A Nancy Pelosi claim is “its all about the kids”, right.? Why indoctrinate them against their parents Religion of choice.?
35. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
SteaM,
I don’t know if there are any avowed atheists in Congress - but if there are, I don’t care; I know there is one Moslem, and I don’t care about that, either.
36. FoolYouTwice | December 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Eric, you seem to be advocating that anything regarded as only a scientific THEORY should not be taught in science classes in public schools. Do you realize that everything in science is only a theory? In order for something to become a THEORY in scientific terms means that it has gone through the rigors of the scientific method and passed. Darwin layed out the hypothesis of evolution. Through the use of the scientific method and overwhelming evidence, evolution became a theory.
Gravity is also just a THEORY. Should that not be taught in science classes? The way you want things, there would be no science classes; because you can’t teach THEORIES in science class.
Creationism is just a hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot be tested. It will never become a scientific theory because of this.
37. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Diana,
I know how many of my fellow Catholics are Democrats, and how many of them vote Democrat at election time…this is, however, mostly from two factors:
1. Holdover - Catholics became almost exclusively Democrat in this country because, to their credit, Democrats made Catholics welcome as the waves of Irish, Italian and Polish Catholics came in - the GOP didn’t, and the GOP thus lost out on a great constituency.
My great-grandfather was a judge on the New Jersey Supreme Court…the son of an illiterate Irish peasant elevated thusly because he was part of the New Jersey Democratic machine…the GOP would never have dreamed, in those days (around 1890-1910) of elevating the son of any immigrant like that, let alone an Irish-Catholic immigrant.
Following on this, my grandfather was an ardent Democrat - but the first cracks in this loyalty to the Democratic party came with FDR’s New Deal. Grandpa was worried that the statism and welfarism of the New Deal would undermine American democracy. But, he remained loyal - as far as we know, he cast one GOP vote in his entire life, for Ronald Reagan in 1980 (he died in 1981).
Then there’s my father - also a loyal Democrat from youth (actually ran as a Democrat for the California State Assembly in 1948 from Santa Barbara - he lost out as the Dem vote was split that year and the GOPer got in). By 1972, however, my father had the historic choice - remain loyal to the Democrats and back the near-treasonous campaign of George McGovern, or back Nixon…my dad held his nose and voted for Nixon. But he remained a Democrat…and only here in 2007 is he switching his registration to GOP so he can back Fred Thompson in the upcoming Nevada caucuses.
Then there’s me - I’ve never been registered other than GOP. There is nothing and has been nothing in the Democratic party to appeal to me…they are unpatriotic; their welfarism is a wicked perversion of charity; their amorality is erroding our society; their pretensions to religious belief nauseate as we see people who claim the title of Christian advocating for gay marriage and federally funded abortion on demand. The GOP has some glaring failures in my eyes, but at least they are not opposed to my core beliefs.
And there is the rup - beliefs. Certainly, a lot of people with “Catholic” applied to their name show up and vote Democratic…but when you get to Catholics (like me) who attend Mass weekly or more often, the GOP gains a majority of their votes…and a rapidly rising majority. You should keep in mind that the Democrats still get the votes of some very conservative, Evangelical Democrats…not that many, but they used to get a majority of them. In fact, Jimmy Carter owed his win in 1976 to his ability to garner “born again” support…
Party registration is a lagging indicator…as can be seen in my father’s case…he hasn’t been with the Democrats for more than 30 years, but only now will registration match voting…though I feel pretty confident that if the few remaining Christians in the Democratic party were to form a Christian Democrat party, Dad would be with them in a heartbeat.
Saying the Creed doesn’t equal actual belief in a Lord - lots of people say the Creed every Sunday and still think that they are complete free agents and can decide for themselves what is right or wrong…in other words, they are believers in the Leftwing God, even while they mindlessly recite a Creed acknowelding a God who is Lord.
Of course, when we get into really lefty thinking, it is even more pronounced - I’ll bet a lot of money that in a parish which has an openly gay or female pastor, there’s infrenquent recitation of the Creed, if its said at all…and the whole sermon is “I’m ok, you’re ok” leftwing pablum…and such people simply don’t want to hear from those who say that God cares, and wishes us to do certain things in order that we may have joy, and eternal life.
38. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Mark,
Thank you for your long and interesting post which contains some valid points. As I suspected, part of your explanation had to do with basically asserting that you can’t believe in the truths contained in the Nicene Creed and be a Democrat. That is, of course, an assertion on your part for which you have no evidence unless you rely on the premise.
I also strenuously object to your calling me and my brothers, by inference, “unpatriotic”. I have rather strong views about the damage done to the Constitution of the United States over the last few years by people you hold in high esteem, but I would never, even by inference, call you “unpatriotic” as a result. It’s that kind of rhetoric which puts the lie to the accusations of “hateful rhetoric” by “leftys”. It’s an example of the same circular reasoning that you use in saying you can’t be a Democrat and a genuine Catholic. For you, no Democrat can be patriotic so if someone asserts they really are a Democrat that gives you leave to denounce them as “unpatriotic”.
Of course, for loyal Party Followers (whatever the Party may be) it is vital that the treasonous and “near-treasonous” enemy who saps our will from within be exposed and punished. If we are not sufficiently forceful in denouncing this enemy within then we will not be ready to fight the eternal threat of the existential enemy without.
39. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Eric,
First a note about terminology. When people such as yourself lay such heavy stress on the word theory, as in “THEORY of evolution”, they are making a basic mistake. When people in day-to-day conversation speculate about something they may say, “My theory about that is…” whatever. In the scientific method this is the equivalent of a hypothesis which can be formalized into a proposed explanation such as, “My hypothesis is that if you paint cows blue, they will subsequently give birth to blue offspring.” This hypothesis can then be tested by experiment whereupon, presumably, the experimenter will learn that the cows still produce non-blue offspring. Given enough experimentation by various researchers in the larger question of how biological traits are inherited, someone can then unify all of the large number of things known through individual experiments to propose a much larger and overarching explanation which is referred to by scientists as a theory.
A well-known theory which is seldom referred to that way is the Germ Theory of Disease or, more formally, the Pathogenic Theory of Medicine. Before its acceptance, it was widely believed by physicians that disease organisms could spontaneously generate in putrefying matter. Now, however, no one seriously doubts this “theory” especially the many purchasers of antibacterial soaps.
So, the fact that scientists refer to the idea that species have changed over time as the Theory of Evolution does not mean that it’s the “Guess of Evolution” or “Speculation About Evolution” or “Something That I Just Thought Up About Evolution”. It means that, in the realm of science, it is considered an overarching explanation within the field of biology.
Now, you ask this question:
The simple answer is this - it doesn’t. If you or anyone else accepts that the Earth is a rocky planet that is about 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on it some 1.5 billion years ago in the form of simple plants and that, since then, animal life in an increasingly large number of forms has appeared and changed over time, none of that has anything to say about “where we came from” in the sense that I believe you use it. In fact, it says nothing about the mechanism of that change or how our Solar System came to be. There is a lively debate within biology about the exact nature of the mechanism of evolution and where individual species fit into the overall background of change over time.
Your apparent objection is that such an explanation ipso facto rules out God as described in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Well, it does if, and only if, you are one of the denominations which make it an article of faith that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on interpretation of the Book of Genesis. However, it is not even a universal belief among Christians that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, much less among Jews and Muslims.
So, in reality, when you ask:
what you’re really objecting to is the the idea that some minority of students taught one of the fundamental bases of biology might, as a result of this information, infer that their religious beliefs are “a fairy tale and wrong”. As we know, a large number of students do learn this information every year and continue to doubt the Theory of Evolution so its intellectual threat to this minority of students seems rather low.
40. Ricorun | December 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Mark: 1. Holdover - Catholics became almost exclusively Democrat in this country because, to their credit, Democrats made Catholics welcome as the waves of Irish, Italian and Polish Catholics came in - the GOP didn’t, and the GOP thus lost out on a great constituency.
Apparently the only thing that has changed is the ethnicity of the current “wave”. Because again, the GOP finds itself on the losing end of a great constituency.
41. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Fool you Twice,
Almost every writer on this site, seems highly educated, professional, and their style is awesome, polished, well thought and well researched.
I’m not in the same league, I wrote that post a while back because it was personal experience.
I had some teachers that had a hate for Christianity, It made me feel hated and stupid.
Of course the theory of gravity is science and should be taught. I guess the root of the problem is not the material, but it is indoctrinating young impressionable minds by saying Darwinism is the truth and absolute truth because some geologist dug up a body in some ice somewhere. I see science as the answer for the energy crisis, cure for disease, technology, manufacturing, everything has science in it. All I’m saying is for educators to have some respect for religious beliefs. If they did this wouldn’t be an issue.
42. coulterfan | December 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
>>That’s pretty much correct coulter. I thought you, and other liberals believed in the seperation of church and state? So, if that’s the case, why would the media even ask such questions in the absence of any concrete evidence that those beliefs affected the political decisions of the candidate?
Whew! That’s a RELIEF! Then you are surely as offended as I by politicians bringing up their ‘faith’ when it comes to unrelated issues. Like when Bush said that “he looks to a higher father” when asked whether he consults with George HW Bush about foreign policy.
Not to mention how outraged you must be by the Texas Republican platform, which asserts that :
“The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation …”
And I’m sure you were just as upset as me with regard to Ex-Justice Roy Moore installing the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court!
It’s about time that Republicans like yourself stand up for the separation of Church and State! You must be SICK watching your party being taken over by these evangelists!
As Goldwater said:
“Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”
and “the religious right scares the hell out of me”
43. Casper | December 5th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Eric T,
“I had some teachers that had a hate for Christianity, It made me feel hated and stupid.”
I am truly sorry that you you had to go through that. While I know there are some bad teachers out there, I also know that the majority of the ones I know are very strong Christians. Many of us are and have been very active in our churches. I would also like to say that making a student feel hated and stupid for any
reason is inexcusable.
“All I’m saying is for educators to have some respect for religious beliefs. If they did this wouldn’t be an issue.”
I agree 100%. Teachers should respect everyone’s beliefs. I pray that I have never disrespected any of my students beliefs.
44. Eric T | December 5th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Casper,
Good Teachers make a student look forward to going to class, they become very interested in the subject. Your a great teacher!
Notice Mike Huckabee is the only candidate talking about education?
45. Casper | December 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Eric T,
I don’t claim to be a great teacher. I just love my job. Besides, how many other people get to be accused of indoctrinating our young in so many evil ways. (Actually the truth is far worst. I subject my students to a ton of puns and bad jokes.)
“Notice Mike Huckabee is the only candidate talking about education?”
To be honest I had missed that. Guess I’ve been looking at other issues more. Dang, something else to research.
46. AAR | December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Christians must stand up and fight for their religion, or sit complacently by while Democrats (Liberals) and atheists continue their ceaseless attacks on Christianity.
Christians must learn that POLITICS and religion DO MIX before they find themselves, their ideas, their beliefs, and their lifestyle relegated to an insignificant and voiceless minority position!
When will Christians learn they must never support Democrats (Liberals) and their anti-Christian atheistic agenda?
A VOTE for a DEMOCRAT — ANY DEMOCRAT — is a vote AGAINST CHRISTIANS!
AAR
47. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Diana,
I’m sorry you feel that way vis a vis my statements on patriotism, but I do believe I’m on firm ground. Of course, as in a lot of left/right discussions, we may be talking right past each other on the issue.
I don’t think you and I mean the same thing when we say “patriot”…for me, it is a very simple love of country. I love this country - warts and all and as it is. I want to improve things, but I make no pretensions that I’ll make it perfect, and I won’t condemn those of the past too harshly because I didn’t labor under the particular stresses they felt - I’ll learn from them and love them…on the left, it is more of a hate of anything in the past that wasn’t perfect in leftwing eyes. You can’t be patriotic about a country if you believe the country to be evil.
I, of course, don’t say you can’t be a Democrat and adhere to the Nicene Creed…you can’t be of the left and adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you can be a Democrat (as of the moment, Dad is still officially a Democrat and a staunch believer in the Creed, eg). The left has been at war with the Nicene Creed from the get go - and those poor people who think they can be Christian and leftists are suffering under a delusion. For we Catholics, this species of thought was expressed under the title of “Liberation Theology”…an attempt to reconcile socialism and Catholicism and the thing just can’t be done.
48. AAR | December 6th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Teaching the Theory of Evolution in public schools — while prohibiting the discussion or even the mention of God, Intelligent Design, and Who may have created that life in the first place, and who may have modified it along the way — IS STATE SUPPORTED ATHEISM and INDOCTRINATION!
Anyone who believes otherwise is severely misinformed!
Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying!
AAR
49. AAR | December 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Eric T,
You say: “Almost every writer on this site, seems highly educated, professional, and their style is awesome, polished, well thought and well researched.”
Those are among the ones you should question and fear the most — especially when they are trying to sell you a “bill of goods” and convince you of something contrary to your own beliefs, and which common sense tells you otherwise!!!
AAR
50. bongoman | December 6th, 2007 at 3:26 am
No, it’s called science. Get a grip AAR.
51. AAR | December 6th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Mark,
The left has been at war with the Nicene Creed from the get go - and those poor people who think they can be Christian and leftists are suffering under a delusion.
You are absolutely correct!
AAR
52. DM | December 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Atheism - belief that there is no god and that religion should be suppressed.
Religion - Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.
The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state though nowhere is this stated in the Constitution.
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws where they are deemed harmful or dangerous to the society.
Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.
The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion which essentially means the government will remain neutral.
Allowing the discussion of evolution and prohibiting the discussion of creationism is NOT neutral and by definition, loosely promoting atheism. This is both a form of government control prohibited by the Constitution and a denying the free exercise of a religious point of view.
Those who wish to argue otherwise are either foolish, intellectually dishonest or both.
53. FoolYouTwice | December 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Atheism is actually a lack of belief in god and nothing more. The rest of your definition is made up by you.
As for the rest of your argument, the Supreme Court has not agreed and does not agree. Even a Bush appointed judge in the Dover Pennsylvania case disagrees with you.
54. DM | December 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Actually I didn’t make it up. I obtained it from the following website:
http://naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm - GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY
Though your definition may be accepted by some, that does not make it the “only” definition.
The biggest problem of the “separation of church and state” mindset is many people interpret it to mean that nothing related to church can be discussed or displayed with anything related to the government. It’s indirectly derived from The Establishment Clause which prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one over another. In other words, the government is to remain NEUTRAL.
This does NOT mean the government should takes steps to prevent any religion from integrating with anything government. In fact, I think most laws are directly derived from religious moral values. To separate the 2 would not only be undesirable but impossible.
The left try to use the “separation of church and state” statement to do away with religion and religious influence. This IS religious persecution and in direct contrast with the intent of the founding fathers.
55. SteaM | December 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Mark,
“The GOP has some glaring failures in my eyes, but at least they are not opposed to my core beliefs.”
Glaring failures is correct. There are so many of these and they are so severe that I would think it would be your patriotic duty to no longer support these people. Anything else would be harmful to the country you, and I, and Diana, and everyone else here do indeed love so much.
As this is a representative government by the People and for the People then therefore the People (including you, Mark) must hold your leaders accountable for their failures. I would say that this is our patriotic duty to do so. Not fulfilling this duty based on some few personal and possibly religous core beliefs is devastating to our democracy.
Also, I grew up in a fanatical Christian Conservative Southern Baptist home. And have grown to have very harsh judgements for that way of thinking and living. So much that I am now very cautious of who I believe. And am no longer a republican. I wonder if you have a similiar story … only reversed?
56. AAR | December 7th, 2007 at 12:18 am
It’s time we treat atheism as a “religion” and remove from our public schools!
AAR
57. DM | December 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Good point AAR.
Loosely defined, atheism is a religion - any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief. It will be really interesting to see how the courts and government deal with these 2 conflicting points of view. If they restrict traditional religion (as they’ve been doing a lot of lately) then by default they “establish” atheism as a government sponsored religion. Seems like that would eventually force them back to the NEUTRAL status the founding fathers intended. This is still far from finish as FoolYouTwice seems to suggest.
58. Repulicans Presidential E&hellip | December 9th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
[...] Mark Noonan added an interesting post on Opening Up the Creationism/Evolution Can of WormsHere’s a small excerpt [...]