kimmy

Paul Broun is just a sympton of a bigger problem, as I said before. Paul Broun's comments didn't matter in his own race because he was already elected. His comments contributed to the ongoing branding problem of the Republican party, but other idiots did more damage than Broun. And some don't. I doubt it's that clever. There's lots of religious voters. But they're no longer the only game in town. One of the misconceptions about the election result is that "the Republican base didn't turn out at the polls because Romney wasn't conservative enough." But white evangelical Christians turned out to vote in unprecedented numbers, and overwhelmingly voted for Romney. Record turnout for that demographic... and they still lost. So appealing to those guys just isn't enough anymore. Those guys turned out in record numbers but their overall vote was down because... they've alienated some other people who used to vote for them. Elephant Team strategy figures that young voters aren't important because they don't vote... and latino voters don't matter because they don't vote... and black voters don't matter because they don't vote... and non-Christian voters don't matter because they're a pretty small minority... and, well, by the time you add up all the voters that the Republicans don't think matter, it's a lot of voters. And a growing number. -k

Ravens, Packers, and Texans are through to the next round already. Later today the Seahawks and Redskins will go at it; I think the Seahawks might be a dark horse team this year. I think that the Broncos are probably the favorites to win it all. -k

meh. Maybe I'll care more once they're playing again. -k

It might play well with voters in areas that are Republican locks anyway, but perhaps not so helpful in areas where they're fighting for votes. Also, many Christians themselves would prefer not to vote for a religious fanatic either. Also, many Christians would probably have been put off by his view that "mainline denominations are sending their people to hell." As it turns out, Broun was elected by acclamation anyway. His only challenge came in the form of write-in votes for Charles Darwin. -k

The difference is that Harper, as per the quote you provided, says he is careful not to impose his theological views on a diverse country. While Broun, per his own words in the same speech we've already mentioned, says that the Bible tells him out to vote in Congress: Perhaps there are detractors who think Harper is secretly guided by his religious convictions. After 7 years as Prime Minister, we've got a good track record to weigh that opinion against. Despite his own religious convictions, topics like gay marriage and abortion have been left alone. Harper may be an evangelical, but he has not governed like one. He, like most politicians of our era, is aware of a dividing line between personal faith and public service. President Obama has spoken of the same distinction. As did JFK, rather famously. Mitt Romney gave his own version of the JFK speech, telling the public that if elected he would serve the public and not the leaders of the Church of Mormon. And on the flip side, here's Paul Broun telling voters that the Bible is going to tell him how to vote when he's in Congress. Do you really not see a distinction, or are you just being funny? It's not a matter of trying to make Paul Broun less evangelical. He is what he is, Georgia voters sent him to Congress, and those are facts that the GOP has to deal with. But why put him on the Science and Technology committee? Why make him chairman of one of the subcommittees? If I was a GOP leader and I had David Duke in my caucus, I wouldn't put him on a Race Relations committee. I'd put him in a role where he had the least visibility and least influence possible. If I was a GOP leader and I had Todd Akin in my caucus, I wouldn't put him on a Health committee. If I had Rush Limbaugh in my caucus, I wouldn't put him on a Women's Issues committee. If I had Michele Bachmann in my caucus, I wouldn't put her on the Intelligence committee. At the end of the day, this story isn't about Paul Broun's beliefs, it's about a political party that's too dumb to recognize that putting a hollering creationist on the Science committee is toxic to large numbers of voters. Evangelical Harper has been Prime Minister of a liberal country for 7 years, while America's Republicans just blew a very winnable election by being too stupid to function. Yes, I think they could learn a lot from Mr Harper. -k

Thanks for the charts, Bonam. They really illustrate that all the media banter about who "won" and "lost" this negotiation is just a bunch of hot air. -k

I bet it wouldn't take much research to find people worse than Ty Cobb who've been elected to Congress. -k

I do, as a matter of fact. Nonetheless, they aren't telling Public school boards what can go on the curriculum. On the other hand, provincial ministries of education *do* have oversight of the curriculum at Catholic school boards. Whether Baby Jesus likes it or not. Now contrast that with Texas where the religious right have had the school board rewrite textbooks... If they're providing these services with their own money, then they can do as they wish. If they're doing it with public money, then they had better provide services accordingly. I think I had a similar discussion with somebody a while back regarding Catholic Charities. Somebody wanted to know why Catholic Charities should be required to follow government standards. Well, as it turns out only a tiny portion of CC's budget comes from Catholic parishes; the large majority of it comes from government. If they don't wish to obey government standards, they can run their charity using their own funding sources. If they want access to government funding sources, that comes with strings attached-- specifically, you can't run your charity in a way that discriminates against members of the American public. As far as I'm concerned, same principle for hospitals. If they want to do their own thing, fine. If they want public funds, that comes with public standards. -k

Well, personally I'd have voted for Terry. I suspect the Tommy supporters were more inspired by his role in founding public healthcare than his interest in eugenics. Ty Cobb may have been a complete asshole, but he had a great fastball. No, he was not appointed. He was selected by his House colleagues. Fair point. Most of America's least successful states are heavily Republican. I'm not either. (but Rep Paul Broun is! see above.) -k

I don't care if parents want to send their kids to religious schools. I do care if religious people are going to boards of education and demanding to say what can or can't be taught in history class or biology class. I don't care if religious people want to follow their own healthcare practices, but if somebody gets hit by a car, the hospital they go to better have a blood transfusion available regardless of whether the attending physician is a Jehovah's Witness. -k

Unlike Stockwell Day, whose religious fanaticism was well known long before he entered federal politics, Harper has not made public statements of faith beyond "Merry Christmas." While conspiracy-minded individuals may see his environmental record as some sort of evidence that he's under the influence of some sort of religious group or whatever that was about, the obvious explanation is that he has long had a pro-business and particularly pro-oil agenda. Political opponents attempted to attach a "Christian fundie" label to Harper for years, just as with his predecessors Stockwell Day and Preston Manning. Unlike those gentlemen, the attack has simply had no effect on Harper, because unlike his predecessors, there's simply no substance to it. Someone with your keen enthusiasm for Canadian politics might be aware that in its formative years the Reform and Canadian Alliance party were plagued by foot-in-mouth blunders that often came in the form of candidates or MPs from conservative rural areas saying things that may have played well on their home turf but were absolutely toxic to voters in the urban areas where most of Canada's MPs are drawn from. Stephen Harper recognized this while Stockwell Day was still leader, and when Harper took the party from Day, he put an end to it. Because Harper, unlike Day, recognized that there weren't enough votes in the sticks to win a majority, and that urban voters would not elect a party they perceived as being run by Bible-thumping country bumpkins. America's Republicans are where the Canadian Alliance party was at about 12 years ago. They haven't yet woken up to the fact that they're increasingly perceived by urban Americans and younger Americans as being the party of backwoods hicks and old coots. They need their own version of Stephen Harper to straighten them out. Gary Goodyear never actually said he was a creationist; he said he was a Christian and that his religious views weren't relevant to his duties. He later explained that he did believe in evolution, although his explanation suggested that he didn't actually understand it. Regardless, Goodyear's appointment to that post certainly was criticized. And Stockwell Day's religious views were mocked mercilessly. "He thinks The Flintstones is a documentary" was a zinger that should go on the epitaph of his political career, and his perceived affiliation with Canada's version of the Christian Right was probably the single biggest factor in his failure to catch on in urban Canada, and as a result in his eventual defeat by Stephen Harper. So the premise that Canadians had nothing to say about Canadian politicians who were perceived as being excessively beholden to religion is simply not true. Canadians had a lot to say about it when those were current topics. -k

I'm not anti-church. I'm anti-church-in-politics, anti-church-in-science, anti-church-in-education, anti-church-in-healthcare. I'm not anti-church if church doesn't stray into places it has no business being in. I think it's great that millions of families spend their Sunday mornings together. Personally I think they could find a better place to spend a morning with the family than at church, but that's their choice and I don't condemn them for it. Hey, you know who DOES condemn them for it? Rep Paul Broun, R-Georgia! In the same speech where he called science "lies straight from the pits of Hell", he also said that mainline churches "are going to send their people to Hell." So who really hates Christians? Me, the one who says they're wasting a lovely Sunday morning? Or Paul Broun, the guy who says that the vast majority of them are going to Hell because they're not worshipping the way he thinks they should? Ponder that for a while... -k

Well, there's no good reason to assume such a culture existed, and good reasons to assume it didn't. If everybody in these cities was obsessed with gay sex... how did they become the metropolis of their region, as described? Why would anybody except raging homos live there? Why didn't they die out in a generation? Where did the baby Sodomites come from? Why would any merchant go there if they knew they were in for a bad night of gay rape as soon as they got to town? Seems pretty improbable that a culture like that could survive and thrive as a city. Hmm. The gay rapist wanted to pound the angels as soon as they got to town... what about Lot? How long did he live there? Are we *sure* about how righteous Lot really was? We know JK Rowling exists. We don't know that anything she wrote about is a fact. Discovering London doesn't corroborate her stories. We know that the ancient desert mooks who wrote the Bible also existed. We don't know that anything they wrote is a fact either. Discovering a flood in the Black Sea region doesn't corroborate their stories. -k

How to crush vast amounts of matter into zero volume? That's the easy part. Read about Black Holes and Gravitational Singularities. How to crush a million animals onto a crappy boat? I could suggest a blender, or ... are you familiar with beef jerky? That could work. Of course, the animals would be poorly suited to repopulating the earth afterward. But very tasty. At least Noah would have something to snack on during his voyage. -k

Which riddle am I supposed to be answering? -k

One needn't be a theologian or have a secret Canadian profiling guide to differentiate between a man with a long and public history of supporting scientific and rational thought from a man with a short and public history of declaring science to be lies from the devil. You're making yourself look quite a fool by pretending otherwise. And yet no attempt to explain Mr Broun getting returned to his post. Paul Broun won't win or lose them an election. But he's a symptom of a much bigger problem the Republicans face, which is being completely tone-deaf. Yes, you've already suggested that Broun and Obama are the same because they're both Christians. And it's a laughable argument. Repeating it makes you look ridiculous. Or more ridiculous, perhaps. -k

(A theory founded by a Catholic priest, as I recall.) Relativity and quantum mechanics are constantly providing us with astounding new information; sadly none of it can explain how to fit 100,000 animals on a boat for a year. Columbia, Harvard, M.I.T... but not Bob Jones University. -k

Perhaps it was a fable, made up to explain how the Dead Sea got there and to warn the kids what happens if you don't listen to what the priests say. Or perhaps there was an actual natural disaster which was embellished over time and to which priests attached their own message. I don't object to those interpretations. But the whole story? Raging gay sex rape gangs, angels, fire from the sky, chicks turning into salt, the righteous man negotiating with god, the righteous man offering his daughters to the rape gang to save the angels, all the bells and whistles? I'm not prepared to believe that stuff without good evidence, and there just isn't any. Same deal with Noah's Ark. Could there have been a flood? Sure. Could there have been a flood that exterminated all life on earth except a handful of people and many thousands of animals on a magic boat? Not without evidence. -k

So Barack Obama and Paul Broun are the same because they belong to nominally the same religion? ha ha, and I suppose they're all the same as Fred Phelps. Sorry, Dick. Funny, but no. Christianity and science aren't incompatible. Many of the greatest scientists were Christians. And yet, out of 234 Republicans in the House of Representatives-- all of them Christian if I recall-- they for some reason select the guy who says "Science and Evolution are Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell!" (his words) to chair the science committee. That's something they've been ridiculed for repeatedly, and now that they've re-elected Broun to the post, that's something their opponents get to continue to hit them over the head with. They completely ignored poor Bobby Jindal, and chose to remain "the Stupid Party." Their choice; just don't cry about it next election. -k

And they found a couple of sites that might have been (but probably aren't) Sodom and Gomorrah, but nothing to support any of the stuff that's supposed to have occurred. No gay rape gangs; no "righteous man" offering his daughters to rape gangs; no angels, no rains of fire, no chicks turning into salt, no smiting. So big deal. Once again, you found London but no wizards. Yippee. And your latest discovery. Somebody found evidence of a flood? Big deal. No evidence of a cataclysmic flood that wiped out all life on earth except a 900 year old dude and a magic boat full of animals. Get back to me when they find your magic boat, betsy. -k

Paul Broun's renewal as the chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee is not a comment about America as a whole. However, it's certainly a comment about the state of the Republican party. Broun's renewal indicates that despite pleas from Bobby Jindal and others, the Republicans are happy to continue to be viewed as (in Jindal's words) "the Stupid Party." They protest about how unfair it is for people to characterize Republicans as ignorant Bible-thumpers and then they turn around and make a mook like this their science committee chairman. Really, what more can you say about that? -k

The premise of you "The Bible" thread was to list facts that supported the historicity of the Bible. But now you concede that the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah existed does *not* support the historicity of the Bible. By the way, I took a look at your article, and while it might be a big hit with the folks at "biblearcheology.org", it's not a widely accepted premise in the archeological community. -k

Your point? -k

And yet you list the historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah among your list of "facts" that prove the Bible is true. There's lots of historical proof that some ancient desert mooks believed in some weird crap and wrote lots of it down. Astoundingly little proof of cataclysmic floods, 900 year old dudes building magic boats, dudes rising from graves, or any of that other stuff. Oh, right. You're telling me I know the Bible really true but I'm denying it because I hate God? haha. Trust me, if I believed the Bible was true, I'd act like it. If I believed I was in for an eternity of torment if I didn't change my ways, I would change my ways. If I thought there was a God who was going to make me suffer if I didn't kiss his ass, I'd kiss his ass. Rest assured, my denial of the "Biblical Truth" isn't an act of rebellion against a God I know is real. It's just rejection of a book full of stupid stories that are too silly to believe. -k

That's how it usually ends up with Pliny. It goes something like "Atheists are intellectual bullies because they ridicule religious ideas, and bullying is like socialism because it oppresses people who are different and socialists try to make everybody the same so atheists are socialist bullies." I wasn't taking issue with you at all. I have really not been following your discussion. I was responding to the Pliny quote. Sure, there are some very strongly opinioned atheists around. And perhaps we should be thankful to them for continuing to make the point that religion should not be treated with undue politeness when criticism is warranted. But most atheists are "nones", those who don't care about attacking religion or promoting irreligion, and don't care about religion up until the point where it starts intruding on science and education and healthcare. I guess I'm not some kind of intellectual; I don't actually even know what The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe is. That was, again, a response to this: Again, a plank in Pliny's inane platform equating everything he doesn't like to political oppression. I don't think Sam Harris' ideas about science and morality are very mainstream among atheists of any description. -k