Democrats Love Young Earth Republicans.

Christian fundamentalism bedeviled the Republican Party in the last primary season.  It’s already started again.

It started when Gov. Mario Rubio was asked how old the earth is.  Of course, the religious right wants one answer, 6,000 years.

Rubio knows it is not 6,000 years and that evolution has scientific grounding while creationism does not.  He just could not bring himself to say it.  This allowed reporters and pundits to label him just one more Republican religious nut case.

The worst thing that could happen to Democrats is for an attractive and otherwise competent candidate like Rubio to appear rational about science.  Democrats need another Texas Gov. Rick Perry to emerge, praying his way to the 2016 Republican endorsement.

It’s apparent reporters covering Republican candidates think all will be deeply religious.  Thus, they see their job as differentiating one candidate’s religious views from the other, paying little attention to anything else.

They will doze through position statements about jobs and national security because all candidate will have the same positions, “I’m for jobs and national security.”  They will reach for their pens only when the topic of Religion comes up.

Conservative pundits can complain all they want about this, “It’s unfair.  It’s the liberal press.”  But, it’s not unfair.

The Republican Party Platforms and its candidates have spent several elections talking up the immorality of gay marriage and abortion. By presenting religious political theater,  the political actors are cast as religious wonks, not policy wonks.

Join a discussion of this blog on Facebook, Red River Freethinkers.  Thanks for visiting this blog.

44 Responses

  1. Henry

    Jon: “The Republican Party Platforms and its candidates have spent several elections talking up the immorality of gay marriage and abortion.”

    Not completely. Maybe in a minor role. The talking about abortion by Republicans is usually responsive to a debate moderator or news reporter asking an abortion question. Then the ensuing week is spent by the media talking about it. By the end of the week, everybody has been hearing all about abortion.

    1. Henry 12:47 “Not completely. Maybe a minor role..”

      You were not aware of the detailed text of the Republican Platform on God, abortion and gay rights? The thing is, reporters would stop asking and writing about Republican’s religion if it was never brought up by candidates or the Party. They bring it up in front of religious groups, then complain when they have to defend their remarks elsewhere.

      1. Henry

        It is too late. The Godless liberal’s zealous hate would continue even to the religious right’s children’s children.

        That really isn’t the Republican’s problem, nor has your premise of God, abortion, and gays hurting the Republicans been tested or proven.

        What has been tested is two politically moderate candidates have been tried for the last two presidential elections. Both have failed.

        1. Henry 1:51 “What has been tested is two politically moderate candidates have been tried for the last two presidential elections. Both have failed”

          That statement reflects the problem. The religious right does not know what a “politically moderate” Republican candidate is. They think it is anyone who is not quite as religiously radical as they are.

          A moderate Republican candidate would be one who would not have a problem with gay marriage of abortion rights because he did not believe in government interfearing in these personal matters. What we have had is candidates who want government out of business but into peoples’ personal lives. The label of “moderate” does not apply to such candidates.

          1. Henry

            McCain conservative? Taxachusset’s Romney conservative? Really?

            Romney true to your definition of a moderate was prochoice three years ago.

          2. Dustin White

            Henry- Romney was not moderate. What he may have been 3 years ago isn’t necessarily what he is now. In fact, his view did change.

            He is also anti-LBGT. He is also quite conservative, and had stated such himself.

            Also, Jon’s definition is more than just prochoice (which Romney is now pro-life). You need to take things in context.

          3. Henry

            What people call themselves and what they are can be two different things. Pay attention to actions when there seems to be a conflict. You’ll grow and learn this someday. Maybe your congregation waiting for you can assist you.

          4. Dustin White

            Henry- Yes, actions do speak a lot. And the way that Romney has acted has also shown that he is quite conservative.

          5. Dustin White

            Henry- Romney doesn’t have mixed messages about abortion, and neither does Obama. Romney simply switched his position. At one point, he claimed to be pro-choice. But that was years ago. Now he states clearly that he is pro-life. He hasn’t suggested otherwise.

            Obama is clear that he is pro-choice. He hasn’t stated otherwise.

            The problem is that you aren’t actually looking at credible sources, but instead just found anything that supported your view, regardless of when it was published, or how credible it was.

          6. Henry

            Years ago? Try three years ago. That is a very short time to flip-flop on that significant of an issue. Definitely mixed message from Romney.

            I can see how you could see that. Your life journey has had many changes since immediately prior to 9/11 in what I would call a very short time period (five religions in ~11-12 years). You previously disagreed. Your time and my time are two different things. I understand how you see things. However, I don’t agree.

      2. Henry

        Jon: “You were not aware of the detailed text of the Republican Platform on God, abortion and gay rights?”

        Let’s look at the Republican Platform. Abortion is discussed on p.12, 14, 33, 34, 36, 45, 46, and 49 of a 55 page document.
        Most of the abortion discussion was in reaction to religious organizations having abortion shoved upon them. It is an example of Republicans being vigilant in observing freedom, and democrats vigilant in reducing freedom.

        What is interesting is the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate that was three years prior pro-choice.

        What is even more interesting is that Obamba, in a confused state, seems to be pro-life.

        The dems still stood behind their guy. This doesn’t really seem to be about abortion. It is more about hate. The Godless liberals (political) will indeed hate the conservative’s children’s children.

        1. Dustin White

          Obama is not “pro-life.” The link you provided is laughable as it contradicts itself, and is hardly an official source. This is why research is needed, and when I say research, I mean credible research from reputable sources.

  2. Henry

    Jon: “Of course, the religious right wants one answer, 6,000 years.”

    Jon’s sweeping generalization isn’t accurate.

      1. Henry

        Let’s talk about what is not.

        I am in the religious right, any way you want to slice it. Theologically or politically. Your sweeping generalization is not accurate in my case.

        1. Dustin White

          Generalizations are not meant to be accurate for the entire group. It is assumed that people are aware of that, and thus are aware that there are exceptions.

          The purpose of a generalization is to showcase what the general idea is of a group, while not having to write a book on the variations of ideas that some members actually have. This is usually just understood, and does not have to be spelt out.

          1. Henry

            Jon’s premises is weak and not established. Your comments are in turn trying to support his shaky foundation. Feel free to follow his fallacy.

        2. entech

          I am in the religious right, any way you want to slice it. Theologically or politically.
          Oh, and I thought you were a fair minded and tolerant individual. The idea that you think Genghis Khan was some kind of liberal (if not an out and out pinko rabble rouser) is irrelevant.

          1. entech

            No, I tested after lunch and it is well within normal parameters. You know so much about everything, from so far away – are you sure that you are not one of Satan’s secret helpers.

  3. Henry

    Jon: “It’s apparent reporters covering Republican candidates think all will be deeply religious.”

    I would have to agree with that. They in turn go after the Republican candidates with zealous hate, much like Jon does against the Christians on this blog.

    1. Henry

      Look at George Snuffalupolous asking bewildering questions about state mandated bans on contraception when NO ONE had previously discussed or suggested the matter.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        You mean the George S., the objective reporter who was Clinton’s Press Secretary, defender, and spokesman? I can’t see him pulling something out of the hat like that. Or can I?

      2. Wanna B Sure

        I became curious about George s. as I haven’t followed him much lately. Did a Google on him, and his activities away from the “news desk”. He is called a journalist, but his other positions makes him look more like a political operative. Hardly the activity one would expect for an objective reporter, nor one that should be trusted for information. I’m thinking; is this the way of all our news sources? I’m thinking; probably. Hmmmm. Not part of the solution, but part of the problem? Both nationally, and internationally.

        1. Henry

          This isn’t a problem that is going away. It is has been a problem spanning nearly a century with the effects becoming worse. The unfortunate aspect of this is that journalists like George S. really are irrelevant based on the number of viewers that can tolerate watching. The problem is people are becoming a little disconnected not keeping up with curent events.

  4. Michael Ross

    If you believe the earth is 6000 yrs old, say so. If 3-5 billion yrs, say that. If you don’t know, admit it. I think you know where I stand on this matter but I value truthfulness and honesty as much if not more than being in agreement with all my views. I believe that Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kusinich (D) have been the two most principled members of Congress in recent years. Both have stuck to their ideals without regard to how many votes they may gain or lose. They are both anti-war and anti-establishment. They received no support from Wall Street as did McCain and Obama on ’08 and Romney in’12. The murderous Dems were even less supportive of Kusinich than the bloodthirsty Republicans were of Paul. In ’08 Paul received about 8% of the primary vote, Kusinich 1-2%. Being principled gets you nowhere. Reinventing yourself and flip-flopping is a winning strategy. That’s how our system works. Sadly, Paul and Kusinich have left Congress. All we have left is the likes of Boehner, Polosi, and Reid. They reek of phoniness.

    1. Henry

      “If you believe the earth is 6000 yrs old, say so. If 3-5 billion yrs, say that. If you don’t know, admit it.”

      Don’t know.

      Ron paul has gotten one or two bills passed? I am unsure of his leadership ability. He does have some populist appeal. Not much legislatively going on.

      1. entech

        Don’t know.Don’t know. 😕

        Yet another lie, Hendrik knows everything,or at least that is the way his posts read.
        You perhaps I am being unkind, it may merely be that he thinks no one else knows anything.

  5. entech

    The most precise answer to the question Comes from Archbishop Usher (Ireland). In 1654 basing his calculations on biblical geneology he found that the Earth was created October 26, 4004 BC, 9:00am (PST). Therefore, the Earth was 6000 years old.

    Of course it was thought that the earth was young a long time before that, young and flat and stationary at the centre of the everything.

    It hasn’t always been good to have an inquiring mind. A French scholar, Bernard Palissy 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589.

    If only the likes of Henry and Michael to catch up with the enlightened attitude of the Catholic church, in these matters.

    December 6, 2012 7:00 am U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is making headlines for an unusual reason.
    Last month, he was widely mocked for saying he wasn’t sure of the age of the Earth. On Wednesday, he assured the public that he does, in fact, know the Earth’s age.

    It’s about 4.5 billion years old, he says, and more significantly, the 41-year-old Miami native doesn’t think that fact is inconsistent with his Roman Catholic faith.
    “There is no scientific debate on the age of the Earth, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” he told Politico’s Mike Allen Wednesday.

    1. Michael Ross

      “If only the likes of Henry and Michael to catch up with the enlightened attitude”

      Creationists, Phd scientists or complete know-nothings like myself, walk on all fours and howl at the moon as far as you are concerned. Jon’s post today I believe was about politicians saying what voters want to hear but you have take a poke at those who believe the Word of God is truthful and factual in matters of science. What annoys me is not that you disagree with that but your pretence that there is no intelligent argument for the young earth and creationism in general. My question has always been if you have all the scientific evidence on your side, why cannot it be debated in public including public schools and universities. Then the myth of creationism will exposed as the foolish, childish, superstition you say it is. Evolutionists should be the strongest proponents of teaching both sides of the debate. But no, like you, they pretend there is no debate from a scientific basis.…1c.1.WQ7QRKRySc8

      1. entech

        When I followed that link I was amazing how many topics came up that had their links coloured as having been previously opened, I read or tried to read most of them. The main thing to consider, in my mind, is the number of times and the amount by which scientific opinion has changed on so many matters over so many years. Every time new information is found some little theory has to be adjusted in the light of the new knowledge, sometimes even rejected altogether. This is what happens when you start form a position of ignorance and keep trying to work it out, science changes in line with new discoveries. The earth ceases to become the centre of the universe, the centre of creation and is found to be not even the centre of the solar system.
        But if you start from the same position of ignorance and accept the thoughts and writings of a primitive tribal culture decide it is actually true for all time, then you stay in the same position of ignorance. Further you compound it all by trying to find counter arguments to the changing view of reality to keep it as it was thousands of years ago. I am not entirely convinced about anything, I generally find that recent science pretty accurately reflects the best explanation available it this time; that is best available and subject to improvement, I generally find a high degree of implausibility in attempts to prove a biblical view, especially when it is claimed that the Bible is without error. For me there are no answers in Genesis.

        Every morning I am reminded of the lack of intelligence in the design of the human body, takes so long before the joints reach even the mediocre level that is their current best, but then I guess I am over the “four score and ten” line, but then I also remember that my young brother, within a month or two of the same magical figure has suffered as I do know since he was about 12 years old. some design, some designer, in the modern world such a designer would quite rightly be recalled for re-evaluation, I would suggest that the ideas of creationism and ID (different words same thing) should also be subject to a recall notice.

        1. Michael Ross

          “My question has always been if you have all the scientific evidence on your side, why cannot it be debated in public including public schools and universities.”

          OK, I’m ignorant. Enlighten me. Teach evolution and creation side by side. The best of both. Isn’t truth sharpened by opposing views? Don’t leave me and others in benightedness, bewilderment, blindness, callowness, crudeness, darkness, denseness, disregard, dumbness, empty-headedness, fog, half-knowledge, illiteracy, incapacity, incomprehension, innocence, inscience, insensitivity, lack of education, mental incapacity, naiveté, nescience, oblivion, obtuseness, philistinism, rawness, sciolism, shallowness, simplicity, unawareness, unconsciousness, uncouthness, unenlightenment, unfamiliarity, unscholarliness, vagueness. Please entech, we are counting on you!

          1. entech

            Michael I don’t think I use any of those words, merely that I think you are wrong, that you have accepted words written a long time as truth and see everything through eyes that are shaded by that truth. I don’t agree.

          2. Michael Ross

            I believed in evolution years ago. I read books on dinosaurs I checked out from our church library as well as the church sponcered high school I graduated from. They promoted evolution and I wasn’t aware of any other theory. There were no books on creation from a scientific basis until the 60s. The field of creation science has come along way since then. It is a threat to the scientific establishment and they know it. Evolutionists are are advised not to publically debate creation scientists. They always lose. The truth is on the side of creation. If that were not the case you would see creationism in the public discourse. As Mohandas K. Ghandi declare: “First the ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” I’d say we are onto the 3rd step. What say you entech?

          3. entech

            Probably still at step 2.

            Who wins or loses a debate seems to me to depend on who puts it on the web. I have seen the same clips claimed by both sides as a victory by a “smarter” against a “dumber” and you can insert the blanks as you will.

            I don’t think you would be part of it but you do get a lot of truncated clips, totally out of context clips and partial quotes to make a case. Happens on both sides but I think more creationist/id people are guilty. Stein is particularly egregious and a good example of why so many refuse the debate, in an interview with Dawkins the question of trans-spermia came up – Dawkins very carefully explained what he understood by the argument and noting that while it was possible he put it up in the improbable scale along with the existence of a creator, being a trained scientist he cannot and will deny anything until it is demonstrated to be false and the demonstration shown to be repeatable with consistent results. This all came out as “Dawkins denies God but believes in little green men” . Trans-spermia suggests it is possible that microbial life arrived from elsewhere on meteorites or similar and that evolution took over from there, bit desperate in my view, although traces have been found in meteorites that ‘could’ be interpreted that way, sometimes called pan-spermia, life exists everywhere, perhaps a natural part of matter is that it does combine in this way (perhaps as part of a creator/designer scenario along deist lines). Directed trans-spermia, the idea that it was not by accident that the meteor (or whatever vehicle) was deliberately aimed is not taken seriously by many, certainly to me that is in the realm of science fiction fantasy.
            I do think evolution is as good an explanation as we have at the moment, evolutionary theory requires that reproducing life already exist.
            The pan-spermia type of idea is one of many attempts to explain how life came about, abiogenesis, it is different from evolution and the question “how does evolution explain the origin is not valid”, evolution has nothing to say about it anymore than creationism can answer “who created the creator”. Interesting enough discussions in their own right, but different subjects. Science may yet find the “ultimate answer to the ultimate question” (probably not 42, with all respect to Douglas Adams), but it will only come about by a continuous search for truth, not from blind faith that it is already known and that the answers are written in Genesis.
            The existence of God is not part of cosmology and without the possibility of testing a part of science, neither discipline can deny the possibility but simply require a demonstrable proof.

          4. Michael Ross

            “Directed trans-spermia” Life was seeded on earth by being from elsewhere in outer space. This is not to be laughed at since it was put forth by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule and a great scientist. He startled the scientific community by admitting there is no evidence for evolution. This along with “Punctuated equilibrium” proposed by Stephen Gould of Harvard, one of the foremost paleontologists of our day. After admitting that no evidence for evolution exists in the fossil record he advocates a “burst” of evolutionary activity every 100 million years or so. Evolution happens so fast it doesn’t leave any evidence. Same problem as with gradualism, no evidence. Credit these men with the honesty to admit that no evidence exists in the world today or the fossil record. But with imaginations like these who needs anything as mundane as scientific evidence? Not entech, apparently

Comments are closed.