In attempt to fight liberal activist judges here in the US, there's been a real effort at producing conservative Christian lawyers (rather than simply lawyers who happen to be christian) over the last 5+ years.
I guess I'm not overtly disturbed by this, as they're confined to the same laws and case examples that the rest of us have to deal with. They'll have to work with the precedent of Roe V Wade in mind; they will be forced to reject unbalanced religious instruction in our public schools. Etc.
On the other hand, it does seem to portray the claim that "christian values are under attack!" as crocodile tears; the culture wars may just be a euphemism for a concerted effort to turn this country into a theocracy. Until now, I've never really taken that notion seriously, but as months and years have passed, I've found myself slowly beginning to reconsider.
This is from an old 2005 episode of NPR's Morning Edition. Make sure to click the "Listen Now" link just under the story's title. I ran across it today, and it made me feel - something. I'm not sure what. Check it out.
Whaddya think, Americans? Is this a valid way in which to affect/craft societal values? Should it be allowed, or fought?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Whose side of the culture war are you on?
ReplyDeleteI never though there was any kind of war and it was just O'Reilly's bs.
I'm not sure, Obsidian.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I would like America's standards & values to improve. More support of the family unit and the intellect, and less support of vapid individual pleasure.
On the other, Christianity refuses to change, and then wonders why the rest of society wants to do things differently. As an institution, they appear incapable to understanding that not everyone believes as they do, and that these people have the same rights in crafting this country as do those who claim they represent the will of the creator.
Yeah, those who claim "culture wars" are the ones assaulting values, not the other way around. But I also sympathize with people who look around this country (tv, news, politics, religion, entertainment, etc etc etc) and think "Yuck"
I would like for people to practice law for the sake of upholding the law and to keep their personal bias out of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd that ain't ever gonna happen.
I know it's cold where I am (Wisconsin), but it must also be a cold day in hell!
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Because I actually agree with what both Whateverman AND NM said, at the same time!
WeM said:
"On the one hand, I would like America's standards & values to improve. More support of the family unit and the intellect, and less support of vapid individual pleasure."
Here, here! (or is it supposed to be 'Hear, Hear!').
NM said:
"I would like for people to practice law for the sake of upholding the law and to keep their personal bias out of it. "
Yes!
I just wanted to say that I agree with these statements - nothing more, nothing less.
LOAF wrote Because I actually agree with what both Whateverman AND NM said, at the same time!
ReplyDeleteI've taken a screen shot of this, for posterity...
LAOF, what do you think about the methodology? Is it something that:
1) is ethical
2) is legal
3) is effective
WeM asked:
ReplyDelete"LAOF, what do you think about the methodology? Is it something that:
1) is ethical
2) is legal
3) is effective"
1. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. I don't feel it is less ethical than any other 'client' wanting their lawyer to represent their viewpoint. Why would it be unethical to do the best job for the person you represent?
I do wonder if, in your original post, you intend to imply that this is for the two sole purposes of a.) abortion and b.) teaching christian values (Creationism?) in public schools. I think there are other issues that most christians would be concerned with (I can list them at a later date if necessary).
Most believers understand that R v. W is on the books. Plus, the majority at the time (from my studies) didn't want anything decided at the federal/Supreme Court level - they wanted this left as a moral issue decided by the states, if anyting. Whether that is good or not, it is up to the individual to decide.
2.) Is it legal? Where would there be a question that it is not? As you so aptly stated, "...they're confined to the same laws and case examples that the rest of us have to deal with". When they break those laws, send them to prison. I have no problem with that.
3.) Is it effective? I don't know.
Word verification: phoot
(how'd it know I had chili for lunch?)
Whateverman-
ReplyDeleteI am overtly disturbed by this.
The goals of the conservative christian movement is an anathema to the liberties and freedoms we enjoy as Americans.
They actually represent a very small minority of Americans, perhaps 10% - 15%, but they are very well funded, and very well organized. Further, their plan is to accumulate power at the local political and educational level, and they have become increasingly successful.
The fact that such a high percentage of recently appointed federal level attorneys are graduates of Liberty University and Patrick Henry should be a warning flag to everyone.
Also, increasingly worrisome is the growing penetration of fundamentalist christianity in our armed forces and military academies.
I don't see how it can legally be disallowed. And rather than fought, I think it should be exposed and countered.
Like an iceberg, for the most part, these organizations operate in the shadows and much of thier organization lies unseen. Bright lights should be brought to bear on them before they achieve the theocracy that they seek.
Everyone should be more familiar with the Council on National Policy, whose most recent achievement was pushing Sarah Palin onto the Republican ticket, when she wasn't even on McCain's radar, but they operate and meet so stealthily, that few Americans are even aware of their existance.
I will put together some info and post about them.
word ver = nestmol
If only there was an authoritative source to judge what is right or wrong. Then we would be set!
ReplyDeleteBF said:
ReplyDelete"They actually represent a very small minority of Americans, perhaps 10% - 15%, but they are very well funded, and very well organized. Further, their plan is to accumulate power at the local political and educational level, and they have become increasingly successful."
Isn't this the intent or goal of almost any minority? Whether an ethnic group, religious group, NON-religious group... Everyone wants to be heard.
I think we're more likely to find an endless source of free energy before Right vs Wrong is put to bed...
ReplyDeleteOh, and BF - your comments about the Council on National Policy and Sarah Palin -
ReplyDeleteSeriously, had you even heard of Barack Obama before 2007? I had only because I live near Illinois
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Isn't this the intent or goal of almost any minority? Whether an ethnic group, religious group, NON-religious group... Everyone wants to be heard."
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference between fighting for your rights and fighting to control the rights of others.
"Kaitlyn said...
ReplyDeleteIf only there was an authoritative source to judge what is right or wrong. Then we would be set!
"
ummm... wouldn't that be something/someone akin to a god?
"ummm... wouldn't that be something/someone akin to a god?"
ReplyDeleteUmm... I think so.
kaitlyn said:
ReplyDelete"There is a huge difference between fighting for your rights and fighting to control the rights of others."
K. - the losing 'party' always feels that the winning party is controlling their rights, by "imposing their will" on them. It's all relative.
"the losing 'party' always feels that the winning party is controlling their rights, by "imposing their will" on them. It's all relative."
ReplyDeleteWe are not talking about political parties. We are talking about ethnic groups.
Minority groups do not always feel their rights are being trampled on by the majority, but they would be wise to always keep an eye for that.
Too many things to respond to - good. Thanks for making my first topic fun ...
ReplyDeleteLAOF, the problem with "God" is that very few actually agree about what he thinks or what his standards are.
In general, I think this practice (advocating a religious belief system through legislation) blurs the boundaries of all three standards listed above. It both angers me and makes me think "Ok...", as well as making me wonder if it's actually going to change anything.
And NO!!!!
ReplyDeleteNot even in political parties do Republicans or Democrats feel their rights are violated just because someone from another party is elected!!!
Are you mad!?
K. -
ReplyDeleteThe objective of most ethnic minority groups is to become the majority.
LAOF wrote The objective of most ethnic minority groups is to become the majority.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's true at all. It would (imho) be more fair to say their objective is to be treated the same and to have the same access to benefits as the majority
"The objective of most ethnic minority groups is to become the majority."
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't! That's ridiculous.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. "
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDeleteAnd yet government can't operate if it's required to only endorse those ideas validated by every tax-paying voter.
Ummm... Separation of church and state, yay?
ReplyDeleteWeM said:
ReplyDelete"I don't think that's true at all. It would (imho) be more fair to say their objective is to be treated the same and to have the same access to benefits as the majority"
And what minority in the U.S. thinks that they have achieved this equality?
Because I actually agree with what both Whateverman AND NM said, at the same time!
ReplyDeleteScreen shot AND it's going to be printed and framed!
"Kaitlyn said...
ReplyDeleteUmmm... Separation of church and state, yay?"
???
Thomas Jefferson was talking specifically about the separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteOf course the government is going to do things you don't like. This was well understood even by Jefferson. But Jefferson also knew that asking for your money to support Islam or even atheistic groups against your will is immoral.
WeM said:
ReplyDelete"And yet government can't operate if it's required to only endorse those ideas validated by every tax-paying voter."
I'll agree with that, and remember that the next time something I don't 'get my way'. Will you?
Please be aware, you're talking to someone who's state is CONTROLLED (governor, state senate and state assembly) by the 'opposing' party.
LAOF asked And what minority in the U.S. thinks that they have achieved this equality?
ReplyDeleteWhite folks!
/rimshot
K-lyn said:
ReplyDelete"Of course the government is going to do things you don't like. This was well understood even by Jefferson. But Jefferson also knew that asking for your money to support Islam or even atheistic groups against your will is immoral."
YES! I agree with you. But remember, this goes both ways.
I don't want to protest or imply or demand that 'my way is the only way'. But when some people cry 'foul!' because it may, for once, not go THEIR way, they should understand that this is a two-edged sword.
word verification: ovediest
(do I look fat in these pants or something?)
"And what minority in the U.S. thinks that they have achieved this equality?"
ReplyDeleteAmerican-Italians is one that comes to the top of my head.
LAOF wrote I'll agree with that, and remember that the next time something I don't 'get my way'. Will you?
ReplyDeleteMost assuredly. I wake up every single day of my life knowing (and accepting) that I'm not going to get my way.
The moments when it DOES actually happen - that Whateverman's values and desires are going to be put into effect or come into being - I'm frikkin ecstatic.
No joke.
I expect that the planet doesn't see things the way I do - this is to their detriment of course, but I can hardly survive by being bitchy about it. I change what I can, and with the parts I can't, I adapt and move on.
"I don't want to protest or imply or demand that 'my way is the only way'. But when some people cry 'foul!' because it may, for once, not go THEIR way, they should understand that this is a two-edged sword."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I don't know what you're talking about. Can you give an example?
LAOF-
ReplyDeleteI will respond about the intent, and wanting to be heard later, but first I will say that I have been watching Obama since his speech at the 2004 convention. I was impressed then, and I hope that his presidency lives up to my exptectations.
As a liberal living through a Bush Presidency and a Republican Congress for so long, I often found myself facepalming at the federal government's actions.
ReplyDeleteI protested the war, I protested the housing market, and I protested George Bush's judicial appointees. With the exception of the patriot act and increased security measures at the airport and elsewhere, I never felt my own personal rights were being violated.
This idea that your rights are violated when an opposing party is in power is intellectually dishonest. You are trying to turn yourself into the victim.
I disapprove.
Oh, and warrantless wiretapping is also a violation of my privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush Administration might not have been the best example...
But California has a Republican Governator. And I definitely never felt my rights were in any way violated there. :)
LOAF
ReplyDeleteummm... wouldn't that be something/someone akin to a god?
A god or gods, perhaps. The christian and Muslim gods of the bible and kuran, particulary as it is interpreted and worshipped by christians and muslims today, no.
Patriot Benjamin Franklin pointed out the problem. I don't think anyone objects to Christians practicing law since they are subject to the law.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, as we have seen over the last 7 years, has been filling the Dept. of Justice with Regent grads. One, Monica Goodling, was charged with hiring for Fed. prosecutors offices. She admitted to making hires based on political affiliation for non political positions. That is a violation of law.
We also found out applicants were asked about their positions on abortion and other social issues. Clearly illegal.
So why is this bad? We're finding out with the U.S. Attorney firings, that it was done because some of the attorneys weren't pursuing political opponents (dems.) despite lack of evidence. The Justice Dept. was turned into a political hit squad for the Bushies with loyal idealogues from Regent among others.
It was clearly done to consolidate conservative control. It backfired and I think we're going to see some big shots taken down for it.
These schools were making big news a few years ago as their grads were getting an unproportionate number of government appointments.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are "Christian Universities, Yale, Baylor, etc, et. but these are absolute fundamentalist in the strictest regard.
Here are the powerhouses.
Regency U.
This school was sarted by Pat Robertson. They do have a law school. The last I knew the number of graduates from the school of Law were quite unsuccessful at passing bar exams, but very many of these people have found their way into goverment positions including federal attornys.
Liberty University
Started by Jerry Falwell. Have a Law school.
Using "non-tenured teaching faculty" was a matter of pride to Falwell, as it allowed the administration to keep a firm grip on the behavior of the academic community. Most of the fundy schools do this.
Liberty University supports Young Earth creationist organizations including Answers in Genesis.
They are currently looking for Biology teachers that support young earth creationism! Ha! Good luck with that.
Problem is once a person teaches in these schools, their chances of ever getting hired at a valid university is slim and none.
It is also reported that they have dinosaur bones in their museum that are listed as 3000 years old.
Oral Roberts University
Like the others, these guys have articles of faith and strict codes to go by.
The problem these places face is getting qualified instructors. ORU shut down it's law school several years ago but still place a lot of grads in the Bush government.
Bob Jones Univerity
No Law school here but influential.
Creed
I believe in the inspiration of the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments); the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.[6]
Students and faculty recite the University Creed at chapel services four days a week and at the worship service on Sunday morning.-----wiki
The BJU science department, which supports young-earth creationism,[25] offers majors in biology, chemistry, and physics and also offers courses in astronomy. In 2008 no member of the BJU science faculty held a degree in geology,[26] and the university offered only one introductory course in the subject.[27] Although ten of the sixteen members of the science faculty have undergraduate degrees from BJU, all earned their doctorates from accredited, non-religious institutions of higher learning.[26]-----wiki
Bob Jones does not have a law school but they are heavy on Government and Poly Sciand a lot of the grads get government appointments and especially under Bush.
A large proportion of the students are homeschooled and are admitted as a matter of course.
BJU is almost all white kids and interracial dating is forbidden.
WEM,
You might want to read this article about these Fundamentalist Universities from the American Prospect.
read it here.
Oops, I should have capitalized Christians, since I capitalized Muslims in the prior post.
ReplyDeleteI will reverse them next time to be fair and balanced
BF
BF stated so accurately:
ReplyDelete"... particulary as it is interpreted and worshipped by christians and muslims today, no."
As it is mis-interpreted by some who call themselves christian and/or muslim, yes. I agree with you if that is a good interpretation?
They must be putting drugs in Sbux coffee or something - Prozac?
I don't think I've ever been this 'agreeable'.
I'd say the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Gods (same god, different interpritations) all share a common problem of anthropomorphism and contradiction.
ReplyDeleteBF writes:
ReplyDelete"...and I hope that his presidency lives up to my exptectations."
Can I hear your comments on how he has addressed (or not addressed) the current crisis so far, i.e. the proposed bailout of the 'big 3'?
I personally see this as a huge mistake. On the evening news, there was only one senator (and his name slips my mind at this time) who asked the best question, to the effect: "This is just the beginning (of the money you'll need), isn't it?"
To which one of the auto CEOs said:
"Yes"
"I would like for people to practice law for the sake of upholding the law and to keep their personal bias out of it. "
ReplyDeleteYes, indeedy.
We are lucky to have as a founding document a fairly well stated and concise guidline to our freedoms.
However, there are still parts that are open to interpretation. This becomes very important when a fundamentaist leaning individual gets the the Supreme Court.
If we would have elected a republican the court would have been packed with conservatives but if we have eight years of Democrats I'm hoping the court will be fairly well balanced, or tipped a tad left somewhat.
Conversely, just think of the madness if we were using the bible as our governing document. That has civil war written all over it.
These bailouts are tricky for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a free market kind of person. I prefer socialism or communism. But since I have such a flimsy background in economics, I have a hard time predicting the repercussions of the auto-makers going out of business or the burden this would put on the tax payers.
Kaitlyn -
ReplyDeleteI'd say the same, except that I would say that the interpretation of this god by humans is where the error is.
Does that make sense?
To your other comment:
"Oh, and warrantless wiretapping is also a violation of my privacy. "
There is no warrantless wiretapping going on (in the U.S.). That was squelched, but not everybody knows that or wants to admit that.
There's always been guidelines restricting the interception of transmissions (radio or telephone) when it involves U.S. citizens.
Kaitlyn said:
ReplyDelete"I'm not a free market kind of person. I prefer socialism or communism."
I'm sorry, but am I to take that seriously?
Would your next comment be something like:
"It's just that it (communism) has never been applied correctly in the past."
??
I know too many people (personally) that suffered under socialism or communism - please reconsider.
Froggie said:
ReplyDelete"...I'm hoping the court will be fairly well balanced, or tipped a tad left somewhat."
Fairly balanced - I will agree with that as well.
However, I don't feel the gov't. is fairly balanced at this point. To see the last branch go Democrat (or even all branches Republican in the future) - that would be scary.
Actually, I was going to point out that you have some strange gut reaction to socialism and communism that I find odd.
ReplyDeleteI am just a little taken back by your gut reaction that communism is evil. It's very reminiscent of the red scare.
K-lyn said:
ReplyDelete"Actually, I was going to point out that you have some strange gut reaction to socialism and communism that I find odd.
I am just a little taken back by your gut reaction that communism is evil. It's very reminiscent of the red scare."
A gut reaction perhaps, because I've had experience with it up close.
LOAF,
ReplyDeleteI also have a number of good friends who have had a similar experience of communism up close and personal.
They're all pretty glad to have escaped it and are adamant that they'll never live in its shadow again.
Nothing wrong with discussing it from a theoretical perspective though...
Great first post, Whateverman; looking forward to many more to come.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOAF
ReplyDeleteYour agreeableness is noted and appreciated. Haven't seen 'Lude Lattes on the menu, but then, I don't do coffee at Starbucks.
You said
As it is mis-interpreted by some who call themselves christian and/or muslim, yes. I agree with you if that is a good interpretation?
Ghandi once said-
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Why can't your Christians be more like your Christ?"
Christianity is mis-interpreted by virtually all modern Christians. Islam is mis-interpreted to a lesser degree, but both deities are man-made fabrications.
prior post deleted to correct the ghandi quote.
I am a free market kind of guy.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of a single example of a socialist or communist regime in which citizens enjoyed the either the prosperity, or freedom that we enjoy in the US.
General Motors and Chrysler are weeks away from perhaps having to file for bankruptcy, but allowing the industry to go belly-up would cost the U.S. government hundreds of billions of dollars and cost the country up to 3 million jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. automakers want $34 billion in "bridge" loans and lines of credit to help see them through the recession, aend even though the companies will probably need much more, sooner or later, it is in the national interest to support the auto industry. The imperative is to get them to emerge as a leaner, more efficient, more fuel effecient, higher quality world leader in the industry.
President-elect Obama said "We can't allow the U.S. auto industry to vanish" I would agree with that position.
Shit. This is America. Has the day come when we cant compete on a global market?
Unquestionably, we have to do a better job than we have done recently. There must be a more level playing field for American goods on the world market, which is not currently the case. The auto industry is a prime example.
Everyone should read Lee Iacocca's autobiography to get a better feel for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBF said:
ReplyDelete"...but allowing the industry to go belly-up would cost the U.S. government hundreds of billions of dollars and cost the country up to 3 million jobs."
IMO, the 'industry' would be far from going belly-up. Don't forget, there are other 'American' car makers now. Honda, Toyota, VW - all have one or more plants in the U.S.
I think we've discussed it somewhere here before, but the U.S. big three all pay an average of about $2000 off the price of EACH CAR produced to pay for employee benefits. This would include benefits for current employees and retired employees.
I've heard stats (sorry, source not at hand right now) that say Honda's cost is about $200 per car - one-tenth.
I can't blame the UAW for watching out for their workers. However, to get out from under some of the crippling contracts that they impose on GM, Ford and Chrysler would relieve a lot of this. I also admit that this is not the only reason - mis-management by the current management plays/played a big part as well (IMO).
-laof
@ Everyone
ReplyDeleteI have long been concerned about the growth of the religious right in the US.
Here are a few links to illustate why I am concerned.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/revpat.htm
http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/24000/?comments=view&cID=23089&pID=23033#c23089
As to Pat Robertson this is what his law students are being taught in the words of the big PR himself:
'There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.'
Here's another 'They scream, "First Amendment." Of course, the First Amendment, as you and I both know, is a restriction on Congress.... So it really doesn't have anything to do with what you say or what I say, one way or the other.'
And then the great Pat made this statement 'A Supreme Court ruling is not the Law of the United States. The law of the United Sates is the Constitution, treaties made in accordance with the Constitution, and laws duly enacted by the Congress and signed by the president. And any of those things I would uphold totally with all of my strength, whether I agreed with them or not.... I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states ... [but] I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party.... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts.... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose.'
This is the same guy who established, oversees and continues to bankroll his university. Scary, very scary!
Codeword Conduit -
ReplyDeleteDon't feel bad. I posted to a thread at 'bout noon CT and it has yet to be 'approved' (although there are other posts already there that were submitted/approved after mine).
Ray (or the 'admin') shows no partiality.
Yeah, if it gets posted I'll take back anything I've said. I just get so damn frustrated, not at the Christian belief, but the pure hatred that some sectors of Christianity have for atheists. I'm on good talking terms with my local pastor, he's just finished his theology phD, and he's not anything like the uneducated, biased dickheads who are perpetuating retarded shit all over the net.
ReplyDeleteI started my blog as part of my AS extended project into atheism/morals, not realizing how bloody mental some Christians are. Well, my dad behaves and speaks like these "fundies" but he's considered abnormal amongst his Christian peers - like, way over the top on nearly every issue. I never realized how fucked up America was.
Oh, it's up now. Don't I feel stupid. I assumed a nine hour delay meant it wasn't going up. Oh well. I'll just delete that other comment lol...
ReplyDelete---sneaks off---
:)
LAOF
ReplyDeleteOne consideration is that I don't think it prudent to hand over manufactuing of pretty vital national security interest such as military vehicles and tanks to a foreign owned government.
Besides, I don't want our soldiers driving a Hyundai Humvee. Too small, no legroom.
CWC said-
ReplyDeleteI never realized how fucked up America was.
Yeah, but most of us are loudly and arrogantly proud of it, doesn't that count for something?
Kids, we already have socialism in the US. It's socialism for the rich and uber-rich, and free market for the rest of us. And the wealth has already been redistributed - it's been taken from the working and lower classes and redistributed upward.
ReplyDeletePredatory capitalism leads inevitably to extreme concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few.
Under a free market system, aren't inefficiency and poor judgement supposed to be punished by failure in the marketplace? So by free market logic, shouldn't the car makers have to go bankrupt, as a matter of market regulation? That's how it's supposed to work, right?
If they're too big to fail, then they're too big to be in business in the first place.
Let 'em go down, I say.
The best, gutsiest thing that President Obama could do would be to let the car industry fail.
The automobile - as a symbol of consumption of limited resources, destruction of the environment, and social stratification (watch all the white folks leave the city for their new hideaways in the suburbs) - should die. Petroleum-based industry is a blight.
The workers are what matter. Take the money that the automakers are begging for, and and use it to create jobs for each and every displaced auto worker, necessary and vital jobs rebuilding the rotting infrastructure and investing in non-petroleum-based transportation systems.
Fewer cars, closer communities, vital jobs, cleaner environment, plus a few executives kicked to to curb. What's not to like?
My new mantra:
ReplyDeletePrivatize profits and socialize losses!
Wait a sec.. let me think about that...be right back....
I was thinking about mentioning the injustice the poor and working class face in a true free market system.
ReplyDeleteBut it was off topic and I would be discussing economic systems with someone with a knee-jerk reaction to socialism and communism.
I can think of numerous examples of socialism working. And communism works on a small scale such as with the Amish. But a purely free market always fail.
Even in America, our economy is heavily socialized, but we try to keep it as much of a free market as we can. The result is a huge gap between the rich and poor with many going into everlasting debt - a modern form of slavery.
A free market may be able to generate the most wealth, but I'm not convinced it generates the most equality or happiness for a society.
Liberty University supports Young Earth creationist organizations including Answers in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteThey are currently looking for Biology teachers that support young earth creationism! Ha! Good luck with that.
Froggie,
About a year and a half ago, a YEC got a PhD in geology at URI: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=marcus%20ross&st=cse. He's now at Liberty, teaching his students about the "gaping holes" in evolutionary and cosmological theory.
A few years earlier, someone else got one in evolutionary biology from Harvard - under Stephen J. Gould, yet. He's now at the DI.
I see this as the slippery slope. The number of evangelicals on secular campuses - including those of Ivy League and other top-tier universities - is increasing. When they con these schools into giving them graduate degrees in science, they then capitalize on those degrees by using them in an attempt to legitimize the institutions for which they end up working, while cheapening the degrees for those who come after.
The American educational system is already in deep trouble. The Europeans just laugh at us (justifiably). This will only make it worse. It represents the encroachment of the fundies into our reality, and the expansion of the perverse bizarro-world reality they've been constructing over the past two decades.
Cipher,
ReplyDeleteYes well stated. I totally agree.
Many of these fundies are highly motivated, but they are culturally conditioned by their parents since birth and escaping those bonds is damn near impossible.
there are anecdotal tales of fundies aquiring degress in biology, etc for the express purpose of trying to disprove it.
They must be putting drugs in Sbux coffee or something - Prozac?
ReplyDeleteI don't think I've ever been this 'agreeable'.
Ah, this gave me a good chuckle.
Cheers LAOF
Cipher wrote I see this as the slippery slope. The number of evangelicals on secular campuses - including those of Ivy League and other top-tier universities - is increasing.
ReplyDeleteDon't overlook the slippery slope of being worried about those increasing numbers, either. It's the curse of an ideal referred to as "the freedom of expression" (or perhaps Democracy)
@cipher
ReplyDeleteWhat is so bad about these evangelicals going to secular universities?
Shouldn't they be allowed to study evolution and geology and come up with their own conclusions about whether the evidence supports traditional biology and geology? And shouldn't they be allowed to teach wherever they want? Why are you so worried?
MFT,
ReplyDeleteI will answer you once. I will not get into it further, as I have a firm rule about arguing with evangelicals; it's utterly pointless.
Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have no place in graduate science programs, as they refuse to abide by the basic rules of science. Marcus Ross, the young man I mentioned earlier, has said that, while he believes there to be "gaping holes" in evolutionary theory, even if the evidence proved evolution conclusively (which it does, but he refuses to see that), he would still not believe it - because that isn't what the Bible teaches. This simply isn't how science works. If you want to subordinate knowledge to faith, and ignore empirical evidence, go into theology - not science.
If a young earth creationist applied to a graduate physics program, and told them, "I will parrot back everything you tell me, but I want you to know up front that I dismiss everything in physics since Newton. Relativity, quantum theory, etc. - it's all nonsense, nothing you show me will convince me otherwise, and furthermore, this is an expression of my Christian faith, so, if you refuse to accept me, it's discrimination" - should he be accepted? My answer would be that he should not be - but this is pretty much what Ross did when he applied to URI. It's manipulative, coercive and fundamentally dishonest. Moreover, he took away a space from someone who, in my opinion, would have made far better use of it.
As for why it bothers me - it bothers me, because, as I said before, evangelicals have spent twenty years or more creating a parallel reality, complete with its own revisionist history and science. They are now attempting to subsume the rest of reality into their own. I abhor the conservative Christian belief system; I view it as a complete and utter abomination. Salvific exclusivism is a doctrine so obscene that it ought to be considered beneath the dignity of a human being to believe it. I genuinely believe that religious fundamentalism will be the most significant factor in the destruction of our global civilization.
Christians believe they hold the cure to our collective illness; however, in my opinion, conservative evangelical Christianity is one of the most egregious manifestations of the brokenness of which humanity needs so desperately to be healed - but of which it probably never will be. In other words - it represents the disease, not the cure.
@cipher
ReplyDeleteI still don't see how this is a problem. If I met a physics professor who doubted relativity I would not think it was a problem. Just because he doubts a theory most scientists accept doesn't mean there is anything wrong with him or his beliefs. I'd say let him study relativity and come to his own conclusion.It doesn't change the fact that most ther professionals accept the theory or the validity of it.
[Salvific exclusivism is a doctrine so obscene that it ought to be considered beneath the dignity of a human being to believe it.]
I guss you made up your mind there huh..
MFT,
ReplyDeleteYou really didn't understand what I said. This is why I don't bother arguing. We lack a common vocabulary. We're speaking entirely different languages.