A country divided by Christ

[globalvillage]

Good editorial piece in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today. I posted this in the religion forum, but I think it may have broader interest. Please excuse the re-post.

Forum: A country divided by Christ
Claiming God for your political party, says the Rev. Dr. N. Graham Standish, is a dangerous folly
Sunday, June 12, 2005

If you are a Christian, how should you vote, Republican or Democrat?

As a seminary student in the 1980s, the choice seemed clear, at least for many of my classmates. We could not be Christian and Republican. We especially could not be Christian and vote for Ronald Reagan. The only choice was to be a Democrat. You can imagine that I felt a bit odd being a registered Republican who happened to vote for Ronald Reagan ... twice. Apparently I wasn't much of a Christian back then.


How time changes everything. Today, Christians all over the country, in print and on conservative talk radio, suggest that the only political option for Christians is to be Republican. During the last election, churches nationwide urged their members, and Christians their friends, to vote for George W. Bush. They simultaneously attacked John Kerry's faith, suggesting that he should be barred from Roman Catholic communion because of his political beliefs. Apparently, to be a Christian now means to be a Republican.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05163/519879.stm

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Excellent article. Thank you. I will be sharing with others.

[gorbal]

2. Good article, but something that troubles me

I still don't understand what people have against teaching the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis along side others, although I understand why presenting it as a theory is a tad presumptuous. Here is an interesting article, which I have not yet read completely but am working on as I speak-

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Does anyone else find it hypocritical that opponents of Darwinism are advocates of the republican version of "Social Darwinism"?

[undeterred]

3. I think the scientists who came up with "Intelligent Design"

started out with the theory and fit the facts into it. The scientific method starts out with the facts and the theory arises from it. ID is supposed to look like a close alternative, but the methodology and starting points are totally different.

I didn't read the article yet, but that's my hunch.

[Gatchaman]

4. Intelligent Design is neither.

Intelligent Design is not science. It's an arbitrary set of conditions that have been altered at will to fit a foregone conclusion which is based not on observation or fact but on a political agenda. It has as much place in the science classroom as star trek technobabble about ion flux capacitors and invert phase modulators.

[ptolle]

5. ID

Indeed, Intelligent design is most certainly not science, it's about as diametrically opposed to real science as one could get. Even cursory research into the movement and its roots quickly reveals the political agenda. One of the major proponents a lawyer named Philip Johnson has been astonishingly up front about calling it a wedge issue; a means to intrude religion into the classroom and the overall curriculum. And you left out one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time the infinite improbability drive.

[undeterred]

6. I agree, but its cleverly disguised to look like science

and a fifth graders not going to know the difference.

[adnelson60087]

9. Fifth Graders....

are not as gullable as the sheep who succumb to ID. I wonder what percentage of Republicans and Democrats support this fiction?

[salin]

7. Excellent article.

[kbm8795]

8. What is important here is the packaging

...in things like "intelligent design" the sophistication of the packaging reflects the degree of subversiveness inherent in those undermining our Nation.

But the point here is that there is no science involved - just deception about science and masquerading. What I'd like to see is a teacher saying "sure. . I'll teach some competing theory with evolution," and then tossing the biblical creationism story aside to concentrate on the idea that Earth was created and settled as a penal colony by an advanced race of aliens.

At least science fiction is closer to scientific inquiry than religious dogma.