Centerblue.org

I’m usually the type who’s “live and let live” when it comes to the role of religion in society–but I do get upset when religious belief tries to take the place of rational science.

Apparently there is a brouhaha brewing over the Grand Canyon involving what the National Park Service can say as to its geological age, and regarding what materials are available for sale at a nearby Canyon-related bookstore. In short, the NPS must give a “no comment” answer to any queries about the Canyon’s geological age, at the same time allowing the sale of a book at the bookstore claiming that the Canyon came about as a result of the Flood and Noah’s Ark. From the news release by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER):

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.

Come on, people. The Grand Canyon is not the right forum for arguing Creationism. The rocks speak for themselves. The tendency of the Bush administration to gag science it doesn’t like is disturbing (the gagging of NASA scientists over the global warming issue comes to mind).

There is a battle royale going on between former Majority Leader Dick Armey and James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a radical right group.

In last Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post, Armey argued that Republicans face an electoral rout because they abandoned the principles of limited government and became the party of huge deficits, Terry Schiavo, flag burning, and same-sex marriage. He pins much of the blame for this on Dobson and other Christian leaders on his FreedomWorks website, and has called them “thugs” and “bullies” in recent interviews.

Dobson and others are predictably shocked and dismayed at Armey’s remarks, saying he is a bitter man who is sore that Dobson supported an opponent of Armey’s for the post of majority leader.

One comment by the radical right was particularly telling as it condemned Armey: “If it weren’t for the [anti same-sex] marriage amendment in Ohio, John Kerry would be president. So shut up, Dick,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and an ally of Dobson’s–which goes to show once again that the GOP’s stooges only care about so-called “family values” insofar as it helps their candidates get elected.

Not that I feel particularly sorry for Dobson and his ilk, but Dick Armey sure didn’t refrain from using social wedge issues when it suited him, such as pushing the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996 (which uselessly told the states they could ignore same-sex marriages from other states when they could already do so under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution), a craven act of GOP politicking intended to force Clinton to choose between his liberal base and the independent vote during his re-election. I think he’s being a tad bit hypocritical.

Sometimes it’s just best to sit back and watch your opponents destroy each other..it sure is a lot of fun!

The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals after revelations surfaced that he has repeatedly paid for gay sex and has used illegal metamphetamines. The burgeoning scandal involving the preacher, a vociferous opponent of gay marriage, comes at a terrible time for the GOP.

The problem can be summarized in two words: Mark Foley. Just as Kerry threatened to reinforce negative views of Democrats through his “botched joke,” Haggard strikes at the heart of some of the problems buffeting the GOP. It is likely to remind voters of GOP hypocrisy on the issue of family values. It will remind Christian conservatives of how badly they’ve been used by the GOP (while Bush and Co. laugh at them behind their backs), and how much the GOP has failed to implement their reactionary agenda. It also generally reinforces the “culture of corruption” theme that Democrats have been using as a hammer against their opponents.

In the end, I think most people have already made up their minds how they’re going to vote. A new poll shows that the “Kerry moment” is a total non-issue in people’s minds–especially among independents–as they prepare to head to the voting booth. If Haggard does any damage it’s likely to be long-term, hopefully causing evangelicals to re-evaluate their involvement in politics given the way they have been mercilessly used and disappointed.

The words that come out of Bush’s mouth become more chilling by the day.

He recently told a group of conservative journalists that he senses a “Third Awakening” of religious devotion and open expressions of faith in the US akin to similar periods in the 18th and 19th centuries. He also noted how these people agree with him in seeing the current US struggles in terms of “good vs. evil,” with of course his side being that of “good.”

Hearing those words, I couldn’t help but wonder if we live in the American democracy envisioned by our forefathers, or whether we are slipping into the dystopian theocratic America described in “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

I’m also not surprised if such a resurgence of religious faith is taking place among Bush’s followers. After all, only faith in Bush himself can bridge the connection between Iraq, the war on terror, and the so-called “good” he is championing.

If Bush is right that our “war on terror” is really just a struggle between good and evil, then:

• The torture and indefinite detention of prisoners of war, and shielding torturers from prosecution, are “good.”
• A war with no justification or connection to how we were attacked is “good.”
• The hypocrisy of dealing with Saudi autocrats who brutally repress their society at the same time that we trumpet the cause of freedom as justification for the Iraq war is “good.”
• Forcefeeding our vision of secular Jeffersonian democracy onto people who do not want it because of their drastically different religious and cultural beliefs is “good.”
• Using a traumatic event like September 11th where thousands of people lost their lives to spin a political ideology and justify an unrelated war is “good.”
• Breaking our nation’s social compact we call the Constitution by seeking unlimited power to spy on our own citizens while they are stripped of any court protection is “good.”
• Seeking to convict prisoners of war without letting them see the evidence arrayed against them is “good.”

With “good” like this, who needs evil?

History is replete with examples of how such “good” deeds have been used in the epic struggle of good vs. evil. Events like the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Third Reich come to mind.

Bush has forgotten the simple ethical maxim that the ends don’t justify the means. In prosecuting his “good vs. evil war on terror” in the manner he has, he’s become no better than America’s enemies.

Several weeks ago I read an excellent article that made the argument that conservatives had successfully made a bad word out of the term “liberal” over the course of the past thirty-plus years–despite the fact that liberalism was responsible for many of our societal advances in the mid-20th century. The article argued that it was time to fight back against that perception and to show the world just what a bad word conservatism can be. Unfortunately I did not bookmark the article and have not been able to find it despite my best effort to Google for it–if anyone knows the article I’m talking about then please reference it in a comment.

While some of my politics are centrist, I identify far more with the Left than the Right. In keeping with the spirit of taking back the word “liberal” as a good thing, I present the top ten reasons why liberals are better than conservatives:

10) Liberals prefer to be sensitive to the issues of various groups of people, while conservatives deride sensitivity as “political correctness.” (”Macaca,” anyone?)

9) Conservatives prefer cutting taxes on the wealthy even if it creates deficits. Liberals believe in paying for what you spend.

Conservatives prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world. Liberals remember that America is the leader of a community of nations.

7) Conservatives prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. Liberals prefer to ponder the long-term consequences of their actions before using force.

6) Conservatism cares most about what is best for the individual, and is therefore inherently a selfish philosophy. Liberalism cares most about what’s best for society and the environment as a whole.

5) Conservatives prefer to prey on the environment for the sake of industry. Liberals understand that without a healthy planet and environment there can BE no industry.

4) Conservatives want to legislate morality to other people who may not share their views. Liberals prefer to live and let live.

3) Conservatives believe that majority rules. Liberals understand that the Bill of Rights was crafted to protect minorities from the predations of majorities.

2) For conservatives, religion and politics are like bread and butter. For liberals, they are like oil and water.

And the top reason in my mind why conservatism is backwards and Luddite:

1) Conservatives prefer looking to the past for guidance on solving today’s problems. Liberals understand that times change and often require new approaches to problems not envisioned by our forefathers.

I also can’t help but toss in one last one for the sake of humor:

0.5) Have you ever known anyone “hip” who was a conservative?

Florida Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris–the Secretary of State that certified the state for Bush in the 2000 debacle–is embarrassing religious conservatives…for being too religious:

“If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin…we have to have the faithful in government [because that is God's will. Separating religion and politics is] so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women, we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn’t what God intended.”

The Religious Right is recoiling from her remarks:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she was “disgusted” by the comments “and deeply disappointed in Representative Harris personally.”

Harris, Wasserman Schultz said, “clearly shows that she does not deserve to be a representative.”

Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris’s remarks “were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican.”

“This notion that you’ve been chosen or anointed, it’s offensive,” Brooks said. “We hurt our cause with that more than we help it.”

I don’t understand why these religious conservatives are so up in arms over what this crazy old bat is saying. At least she has the guts to show the Religious Right’s true colors and say aloud what they all believe but keep to themselves. They all act like they’re the Anointed Ones and final arbiters of morality.

A bunch of conservative creationists lost control of the Kansas State Board of Education today in favor of members favoring the teaching of evolution in classrooms. The creationists advocating the theory of “intelligent design” had sought to weaken or eliminate references to evolution in class, with one candidate calling the theory of evolution “an age-old fairy tale” and a “nice bedtime story.” Today’s vote thankfully puts science back in the hands of scientists and out of the hands of theologians.

This “intelligent design” argument is really just a rehash of teleological arguments going back to Thomas Aquinas (who in turn borrowed from Aristotle). The argument is essentially this: that the universe is so vast in its complexity of life and matter that there must have been some Architect or designer behind it all, for only in that way could something so complex and ordered come about.

The argument is specious. It essentially perceives a pattern in the universe’s complexity, and thereby concludes there is a message in that complexity: that God exists.

If you take a bunch of sticks and throw them up in the air, and they come down in such a pattern as to mysteriously form the word “H-E-L-L-O,” it doesn’t mean that aliens from outer space are the “architect” behind the message. As spooky and astonishing as the arrangement of sticks might be, the arrangement was really just a random coincidence. You can discern nothing about any “architect” based on patterns perceived in the physical world. God may or may not exist, but this argument from design is not going to get anyone anywhere.

In the meantime, let’s teach our kids something upon which almost all scientists agree: that life came about as a result of evolution. Whether evolution occurred randomly or as a result of a Creator is really beside the point.

Religion is taking a left turn. According to that cbsnews.com article, the National Council of Churches represents about 50 million religious people, most of whom are mainline Protestants. Dr. Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of that organization calls his movement the “center-left” (which coincides neatly with the mission of this blog.) He is seeking to gain some of the same political muscle currently wielded by the Religious Right. The movement is focusing on such issues as poverty, the environment, and ending the war in Iraq.

Some of my friends on the Radical Left want to exorcize religion from all discourse in politics and in the Democratic Party. Their position is understandable, given the damage the rigidity of the Religious Right has inflicted on this country for 25 years. Unfortunately, their position also puts idealism over pragmatism.

Whether we like it or not, a majority of Americans are religious in one way or another. Insisting on invalidating their religious beliefs is a ticket to continuing to lose election after election, and is as foolish as any Democratic strategy that gives up on the South.

The Religious Left shows that religion is not incompatible with liberal beliefs, and in fact religion may more easily align itself with the Left than the Right on many issues. Protecting the environment, feeding the poor, and opposing a groundless war are beliefs that are easily reconcilable with Christian tenets. On other social issues, Edgar says:

“Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion.”

How true.

It’s time to stop ceding the argument that liberals and Christians are incompatible if we really want to win back the hearts and minds of Americans. The Religious Left sounds like a great start for that.