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).

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.

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.