Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

Sarah Palin

More Christian Nation Controversy

Apr 22nd, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

This topic of the United States as a “Christian Nation” is abused so often by the religious right that it’s gotten beyond tedious, but Sarah Palin managed to stir it up again with her ignorant ramblings at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Kentucky.

According to an ABC News story, Palin thinks it’s “mind boggling” to suggest that the United States is not a Christian nation.

From the article:

“God truly has shed his grace on thee — on this country,” Palin told the Women of Joy conference. “He’s blessed us, and we better not blow it.”

[…]

“And then, hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it’s mind-boggling to see some of our nation’s actions recently, but politics truly is a topic for another day.”

[…]

“Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” said Palin. “And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

Needless to say, her comments ruffled a few feathers and sparked a lot of commentary… mostly because she’s factually incorrect on multiple points, something that isn’t surprising based on her track record.

First, Obama didn’t say we are not a Christian nation, as is often mis-quoted. What he said was…

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

(src)

Note the prepared remarks stated “we are no longer just a Christian nation” but he stumbled over it a bit during his speech. The key word, which tends to be omitted by the religious right when going off on a rant about how persecuted they are, is “just.” Factually speaking, we are not just a nation of Christians. There are many other religions practiced in our country and, as Obama stated, people who practice no religion (even if they’re not explicitly atheists).

So if the definition of “Christian Nation” is a nation populated by those of the Christian faith, then yes, we are a Christian nation. However, that same definition means that we are a Jewish nation… a Buddhist nation… a Hindu nation… a Scientologist nation… an Islamic nation… a Wiccan nation… and the list could go on and on and on.

However, I doubt the religious right goes with that definition. Their definition is probably more likely that we are a nation founded and based on Judeo-Christian principles, blessed and ordained by the Judeo-Christian god, and protected by Divine Providence. Of course, that’s nonsense and has no factual basis whatsoever.

Those who promote the idea that we’re a Christian nation frequently note the reference to “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence as bits of evidence in their favor. They also harp on the religious beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s true that many of the founding fathers were religious men. That argument is largely irrelevant, but if taken seriously, gives them no real support. Not all the founding fathers were religious men. Some had no affiliation and some were deists. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence was a deist… so presumably, when he refers to “Nature’s God” or “their Creator,” he is referring to a god who created the universe and then walked away, never to be heard from again. He certainly was not referring to the Christian notion of a God who listens to and answers prayers or is otherwise involved in the daily workings of the world.

That aside, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document. The Constitution is our governing document… and the only mention of anything godly in our Constitution is “In the Year of our Lord” when referring to the date… hardly an indication of Christian divine providence. There is nothing… nothing… in the Constitution that mentions God, Jesus, or anything else in the Christian faith. It is a decidedly secular document, regardless of the personal beliefs of the founding fathers.

Actually, the fact that many of the founders were religious men, yet chose to omit any kind of religious references in the Constitution, is a huge indication that they specifically did not want the country to be a “Christian nation.” So quoting a founder’s view on religious faith is mostly irrelevant because the document is what governs our country… not the personal views of select founders.

It’s disingenuous for Palin (and the religious right) to claim that this is a nation based on the Christian faith… disingenuous and dishonest. Based on the actual facts, it’s blatantly untrue. There isn’t really a valid debate to be had.

The religious right, however, is a group that considers faith without evidence to be a virtue, so I’m sure the issue, much to the dismay of those who know better, will continue to come up.

No doubt Sarah Palin will make sure of that.

Those stupid scientists!

Jan 21st, 2010
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Calamities of Nature - Hot Debate From Calamities of Nature comes this comic (the image here is just the first panel). I don’t want to spoil it for you, but I’ve heard a similar argument made by Sam Harris concerning the word “elite” in a Newsweek essay about Sarah Palin and politics last year. Not exactly the same argument, but related.

The comic brings up a valid point (though highly simplified to fit into three panels) and I’ve commented on it before… with no small amount of disdain. The point is relevant to more than the topic addressed and I’ve encountered the same seeming inconsistency-of-thought regarding evolution, the age of the Earth, cosmology, and a few other science-related topics.

It’s an attitude that science is great… unless it conflicts with your political or religious ideology… that it’s better, in that case, to trust someone who’s not too educated, not too intelligent, not too well informed, not too “elite”… rather than someone who is highly trained in the related field.

Here’s the excerpt from Sam Harris’s article (to save you the time of searching the Newsweek article for it):

Ask yourself: how has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.

It’s a huge problem in this country today.

Right turn, Clyde… or not.

Dec 1st, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I’ve mentioned before that I wish the Republican party would “go back to being the fiscally conservative, small government party they used to be instead of the religious, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environment party they are now.”

Andrew Sullivan, over at The Daily Dish,  seems to have the same idea, but in more detail. Andrew and I are not alone, either, since I’ve seen links to his post from two other blogs today, as well as a post by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs who also put together a list of why he’s parted ways with the Right. No doubt there are plenty more who agree with these folks.

Here’s a sampling of items from both posts that I find particularly noteworthy (though I recommend going through the full posts of both blog authors).

From Andrew Sullivan:

  • I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.
  • I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
  • I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.
  • I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
  • I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy
  • I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
  • I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

From Charles Johnson (reasons why he parted ways with the Right):

  • Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)
  • Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)
  • Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)
  • Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)
  • Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)
  • Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)
  • A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)
  • Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

I think all of those issues are critical issues with the Right, but I tend to focus in on the anti-science, anti-intellectual issues like evolution and climate change… and then I just continue down the path of monumental incredulity at the crap that is touted, supported, and defended by what used to be a fiscally and bureaucratically conservative and responsible party.

I will grant that not all Republicans are this way, but the party in general (or as Andrew Sullivan puts it… “in so far as it means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP”) has taken on the self-righteous air of superiority, while in practice, promoting ignorance, hatred, and the idea that the better educated you are, the smarter you are, and the more experience you have, the less qualified you are to partake in intellectually challenging endeavors.

If this country is going to improve its status (and it does need improving) or even maintain its current position in the world, the Right needs to change its ways or get out of the way, because its current pattern of blocking science and education, glorifying ignorance, and pounding its virtual fists on the podium of bigotry doesn’t cut it and it won’t cut it in the future.

As Charles Johnson said:

The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

I won’t be jumping off that cliff, either.

Evolutionary Shenanigans

Nov 20th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Here’s another snippet about Palin’s newly-verified creationist beliefs from The Daily Beast.

In her new book…

…[Palin] finally comes out of the closet as a creationist—or as she puts it, “the C-word.” In doing so, however, she manages to obscure the extent of those creationist beliefs by citing her acceptance of “microevolution.”

Oh, microevolution! It’s the favorite “concession” by creationists, used so they can sound accepting of science and therefore feel more credulous when they dismiss Darwinian evolution.

Biologists use the phrase “microevolution” to refer to changes within a group of organisms over a relatively short period of time. The most-famous example is the peppered moth of England, which became darker over generations in response to pollution from a local factory that blackened the trees it relied on for camouflage, encouraging the survival of similarly colored moths. Because these changes are so easily observed, creationists tend to concede their existence. But only to a point: They do not acknowledge that over time, natural selection will lead to radically different new types of organisms, the process known as “macroevolution,” responsible for bigger leaps like birds evolving from dinosaurs.

What caught my eye about this article were two points. First, the author quotes Dr. David Menton, who, if you read my Creation Museum writeup, was the speaker for the Microscarium presentation at the museum. He’s a “scientist” (sarcasm quotes intentional) who, in his presentation, showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has almost zero understanding of evolution. Here’s the part with Menton.

The basis for this distinction is rooted in Christian doctrine, not science. According to Dr. David Menton, a staff scientist at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, microevolution is acceptable only if species vary within the same “kind,” a translation of a Hebrew phrase from the Old Testament describing the original sets of species that traveled on Noah’s ark.

“The point is you get a lot of different kinds of dogs but dogs remain dogs,” Menton said. “They don’t become cats.”

I find it interesting that he seems to admit his scientific claim isn’t based on science. The biblical “kind” argument is used constantly by creationists and figures prominently in the Creation Museum. There is no definition of “kind,” however, and it’s intentionally kept vague and nebulous so it can be used to support their arguments in whatever manner required.

Menton displays immense ignorance of evolution when he says that “dogs remain dogs… they don’t become cats.” Evolutionary theory doesn’t say that dogs become cats… or that chickens become horses… or that monkeys become people. What it does say is that minute changes build up gradually over a tremendous amount of time and eventually lead to speciation. Menton can’t accept this because, according to the bible, the universe is only about 6,000 years old, which doesn’t leave nearly enough time for evolution to occur.

The second point in the article that caught my eye was that Palin (and Menton) was refuted by an actual evolutionary scientist, Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True.

University of Chicago ecology and evolution professor at Jerry Coyne calls the passage in Palin’s book a “typical creationist ploy” easily refuted by fossil evidence suggesting transitions between animals as fish and amphibians or land animals and whales.

“Her stand is basically a biblically oriented stand…that has no basis in fact,” Coyne told The Daily Beast in an e-mail. “It is a ridiculous ploy of the ‘duck kind,’ i.e. a canard.”

Score one for Jerry Coyne.

Sarah Palin and the political spotlight

Nov 20th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Sarah Palin - Going Rogue Back in 2008, during the presidential campaign, I wrote (in my personal blog) about Sarah Palin in a post titled “Folksy” doesn’t belong in the White House. By that point, I’d gotten enough information about Palin to make up my mind about the election and her poor qualifications, anti-intellectualism, and “folksiness” disqualified her for my consideration, costing McCain my vote.

Since that time, Palin has turned into a Republican darling for reasons that only reinforce the new Republican image; an image that emphasizes (and practically glorifies) lack of education, dogmatic dismissal of science, hate-fueled misinformation, and general ignorance. Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility… the party of smaller government and lower taxes… the party that wanted to keep government as unobtrusive as possible. I liked that. Now, it’s the party of “no,” the party of science denialism, the party of right-wing, fundamentalist religion, the party of self-righteous moral proselytizing and intrusion into private, personal matters, the party of selective free speech (free speech as long as it’s speech of which they approve), and the party of unwavering faith in misinformed, spiteful “leaders” like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

I digress.

Palin has worked hard to maintain her position in the Republican spotlight and recent polls show she has fairly strong support among Republicans when it comes to presidential contention. That indicates the lamentable state of the American voting public.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece for Newsweek about Palin’s appeal to “populism” and her constant denigration of the “Washington elite.” Says Hitchens…

Sarah Palin herself can apparently never tire of contrasting her folksy provincialism with the pointy-headed intellectuals, and with those in the despised city of “Washington,” where her supporters want—it would seem against her own better instincts—to move her.

It’s an interesting point. Palin rails against Washington and the “elite” but seems to have a strong desire to become a Washington insider herself… as if her poor qualifications actually make her more qualified. She is (again from Hitchens)…

[…] anti-Washington except that she thirsts for it, and close enough (and also far enough away to be “deniable”) to the paranoid fringe elements who darkly suspect that our president is a Kenyan communist.

Palin, by any rational standard, is “out there” in her views on a number of issues… not the least of which are creationism and the exorcism of witches. Her statement that she hopes our soldiers are being sent to Iraq on a “task that is from God” is also disturbing on a number of levels. Someone with her purported beliefs should not be in charge of this country if we are to be successful… and free.

Hitchens concludes (and I agree)…

Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime. This completes the already strong case for allowing her to pass the rest of her natural life span as a private citizen.

Here’s hoping for that.

One reason McCain lost my vote in 2008

Nov 17th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Here’s an excerpt from a review by Michiko Kakutani of Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue.

Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she "didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees." In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: "My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."

If a candidate is so scientifically illiterate (or so intellectually stunted by unjustified religious dogma) that she doesn’t accept the theory of evolution, she has no business holding any position of authority in this country.

(via)

Outside the Chapel Doors

Oct 20th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
5 comments

Taking care of the world - health care and climate change For the past few days, I’ve been mulling over the issues of health care and global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) in the context of who opposes the issues. It seems that almost every person who opposes (meaningful) health care reform and who denies global warming is either very conservative and/or very religious (usually both)… and I’ve been trying to figure out the correlation, if there is one.

A friend suggested that it’s because both demographics tend to just follow the “party line,” whether it be delivered from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck or from Republican politicians like John Boehner and Sarah Palin. I think that may be true in some instances, by why did those people start denying climate change in the first place?

I’ve seen climate change deniers cherry pick evidence, offer irrelevant evidence (it snowed early this year!), distort existing evidence, make up evidence, cite faulty studies, and quote scientists in unrelated fields of study… all in an attempt to discredit scientific studies showing that our planet is, indeed, warming, that it is doing so at a far more rapid rate than historical trends would indicate, and that human carbon emissions are very likely having a significant impact on the warming.

I’ve seen people use the same types of tactics in an effort to stop any meaningful health care reform, too. I’ve seen accusations of fascism. I’ve seen absurdities about “rationed” health care and “death squads.” I’ve seen outright lies. I’ve seen alarmist cries of socialism (as if there aren’t tons of government run programs that fall into that category already).

The only connection I can easily make (which doesn’t necessarily make it valid) is that both issues would cost money to solve and both issues would require legislation of some sort… a change in the status quo. Conservatives may want to discredit climate change because they don’t want to have to pay to mitigate it. They don’t want to pay for any changes in our health care system because they don’t want any changes to what they already have. Personally, I think that has a lot to do with it. Opponents are basically saying, “If it’s going to cost me money or change what I’ve got, I want no part of it.”

That connection seems obvious to me.

What seems less obvious is what I’ve been mulling over in the past couple days and I’d love to hear feedback on this.

In the demographic in question, most (not all) are right-wing conservatives and very religious people (frequently, the two go hand-in-hand). I’ve made the claim before that religions (monotheistic religions in particular) are narcissistic by their very nature. Thinking of human beings as a “special creation” of a loving, caring god is the epitome of self-aggrandizing conceit.

Providing affordable health care to everyone in the country (or the world, for that matter) is an altruistic endeavor. For those of us who have good health insurance coverage, wanting to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it or who cannot obtain it puts the focus on something other than ourselves.

Mitigating global warming is something that is good for the entire world, not just our country. Looking at the big picture (again, outside our own self-interests) indicates that taking care of the issue now, regardless of costs involved, will benefit the entire world in the long run. It may cost our country some money. It may cost us money personally. But if we don’t consider just ourselves… if we consider that we’re part of a larger, global community… it seems that the proper course of action is to deal with the problem now.

In both cases, the solutions require us to think of the bigger picture… to think of the well-being of others… to consider the impact on the world, not just ourselves and not just our country. With the religious mindset that a god is watching over us and protecting us because we are very special to him (on a personal or a national level), there’s no need to do that… nor a reason to. Indeed, US Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) says just that.

The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

(video)

I’ve heard someone (who is very religious) say that he struggles with the idea of paying for other peoples’ health care because he already donates 10% of his income to the church, so he’s already doing his part (it wasn’t that cut and dry, but that was the gist of it). I can understand that viewpoint, but it falls directly in the middle of the “I’m special because of my religion” mindset. Why does the altruism end outside the chapel doors? In addition, what makes inside the chapel doors more deserving of financial support?

I also understand the position that the government is notorious for its inefficiency with our tax money. There’s really no argument there, but that’s no excuse for neglecting people. That’s no excuse for refusing to clean up after ourselves. That’s no excuse for ignoring global environmental problems. That’s no excuse for being dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous about the issues. That’s no excuse for falling back on the claim of divine right.

Let me know what you think.

Hypocrisy? I think so.

Mar 20th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Sarah PalinToday I saw a video of an interview with Sarah Palin about gay marriage. The interview was The Christian Broadcasting Network in October of 2008, so it’s nothing particularly current. However, I think it highlights something that is all too common, not just regarding the gay marriage debate, but religious issues in general.

Here’s what Palin says during the interview.

In my own state, I have voted […] to ammend our  constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. Ummm… I’m… You know I’m not gonna be up here judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgement, telling them what they can and cannot do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take action that I believe would be best for traditional marriage […]

I want to be clear on something here. I 100% support her right to have and voice an opinion that is contrary to mine or anyone else’s. I would never want to squelch free speech on any issue.

What I have a problem with, in this particular case, is the blatant hypocrisy. She says that she supports a constitutional ammendment on a state and federal level that would ban gay marriage by defining it as between one man and one woman. Then she says that she’s not “gonna be up here judging individuals” or “telling them what they can and cannot do, should and should not do.” That’s in complete contradiction with her first statement.

So which is it? Only Palin knows for sure, but I can speculate based on information from other statements she’s made. She does want to tell people what they can and cannot do. She is judging people. Not only that, but she’s doing it based on teachings from her religious holy book. If you listen to the entire interview, she goes on to say the following.

[…] speaking up for traditional marriage… that… that… instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage.

Putting aside her mid-sentence shift of meaning, she started out saying that “traditional marriage” is the “foundation of our society.” At least it is today. Tomorrow, our foundation might be the Ten Commandments. Perhaps later it could be Christian values or the right to life or a good work ethic. It seems that the foundation of our society can shift and morph and become whatever it needs to be to support the argument at hand, whether that argument is about gay marriage, religion in schools, abortion, political prayers, or other religiously-motivated topics du jour.

The all-too-common refrain, however, closely mimics Palin’s statements. You’re free to do what you want and believe what you want… as long as it goes along with biblical teachings. Nobody will judge you or tell you what to do… as long as what you’re doing is acceptable according to the bible.

I guess I won’t be having scallops for dinner. (Leviticus11:11-12)