US Congress - Clash of Science and Scripture

[kimmy]

You are "anti-church" in education and health care ? Do you have any idea how much "health care" is delivered by religious organizations, particularly in nursing homes and hospitals ? No more Notre Dame or St. (insert name) colleges or universities?

Just because you don't like it ?

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Nevertheless, isn't a sitting member of Parliament (Saanich-Gulf Islands) an un-apologetic Anglican minister ? Is this a current topic? Or is there only time and attention for elected members of the US government and committee chairmanships ?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Then of course you also object to the Constitution Act, which specifically creates religious preferences for Catholics and Protestants in several provinces.

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.

Nice dodge....there are MILLIONS of people who depend on healthcare and nursing home services delivered by religious organizations. Tell those people you don't like it and they should just hold out for secular, atheist care instead.

I guess there is no room for Mother Theresa types in your world either. Nice!

Edited January 3, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

I'm just trying to get calibrated here....remember...I am not Canadian. Look at it from my point of view.....if the Greatest Canadian was a eugenics fiend (Tommy Douglas), I am not sure worshiping science Canada style is any better. How do you reconcile this gap ?

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.

He was appointed, no? Aren't your Senators seated the same way? No vote even required.

No, he was not appointed. He was selected by his House colleagues.

They're doing OK....as the Republicans control the House and a slim majority of state legislatures. Lots of governors too.

Fair point. Most of America's least successful states are heavily Republican.

Yet I am not phased....or hell bent on attacking individual Christians.

I'm not either. (but Rep Paul Broun is! see above.)

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

Tommy supporters? Canada has crowned Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian of all time....even if he was a commie eugenicist. Ty Cobb wasn't elected to Congress.

[kimmy]

Then of course you also object to the Constitution Act, which specifically creates religious preferences for Catholics and Protestants in several provinces.

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...

Nice dodge....there are MILLIONS of people who depend on healthcare and nursing home services delivered by religious organizations. Tell those people you don't like it and they should just hold out for secular, atheist care instead.

I guess there is no room for Mother Theresa types in your world either. Nice!

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

[kimmy]

Tommy supporters? Canada has crowned Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian of all time....even if he was a commie eugenicist. Ty Cobb wasn't elected to Congress.

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

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.... 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.

That's great, but obviously this is not the case in Canada or the United States. Public - private partnerships have long delivered education and health care services, and that is not going to change just because you think there must be strict separation and standards compliance for things like abortions, blood transfusions, charitable ministry, etc. Government actually provides tax incentives for such organizations to raise money and thrive.

[The_Squid]

Trolls really don't let go once the sink their teeth into something, eh? lol

1930's eugenics....

Presidents that held slaves....

It's funny how we measure greatness in modern times....

If the person renounces their rather odd views through their actions, as Tommy Douglas did, I think history looks a little kinder on them, which is very understandable. Tommy Douglas governed totally opposite of how someone who believes in eugenic would govern.

When able to implement action, Douglas did not choose a eugenic path. Indeed the path he followed can be considered a direct contradiction to what would be eugenic principles. In this first term as Saskatchewan’s premier, when he also held the post of minister of health, Douglas rejected the recommendations of two reviews of Saskatchewan’s mental health system that put forward sterilization of the mentally disabled as a policy option. Rather he placed an emphasis on therapy and vocational training and expanded by 10-fold the budget of the Psychiatric Branch....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/michael-shevell-tommy-douglas-the-young-eugenicist/

[cybercoma]

The only provinces in Canada that had eugenics programs were Alberta and BC. BC was voluntary only. Although volunteering should be used loosely as one does not give free consent to be sterilized when the price of not doing so is to be institutionalized for the rest of your life. Eugenics was a popular movement in both the United States and Canada and was thought to be the path to curing all social ills. If people came from good "stock" then all of these deficiencies that cause mental illness, alcoholism, and criminality could be be eliminated. We even went so far as to have "Best Baby Contests" in the name of breeding responsibly for the social good. My point, this wasn't something particular to Tommy Douglas at the time. It was a commonly held progressive belief. That is to say until WWII. The idea of eugenics taken to the n^th degree through Nazi experiments were horrifying at best. Although things never change immediately in history, this was the turning point where we began to question eugenics and whether it was really doing social good or harm. Despite this, Canada's eugenics boards were still legally authorized until the 1970s, believe it or not.

[Guest Manny]

Such unfettered Darwinism.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Well, it's good that it's obvious to you. It's not so obvious to some who question his beliefs, which he doesn't talk about, as you pointed out.

So I have to wonder what the difference is between Harper and Broun.

Where I do think religious beliefs need to be discussed is when they directly impact policy. One example might congressman Paul Broun, who declared that he believes that evolution and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pits of Hell." That might not be a big policy issue, except that Broun serves on the House Committee for Science and Technology.

Seems to me Harper's position as PM would fall under the "could impact public policy" condition. Whether you personally believe a politician's religious beliefs could affect their public policy is hardly the criteria for who should - or shouldn't - be held up to such scrutiny.

Someone with your keen enthusiasm for religion in the U.S. should be aware of religion and the possible political impacts in Canada - and that it's still very much a topic.

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.

Really? You think simply not talking about it makes one less "evangical?"

Some political observers say Harper -- who has been criticized for muzzling his cabinet and his many evangelical MPs -- could suffer politically if he were more open about his form of Christianity in a diverse, multicultural country such as Canada.

Harper doesn't respond to journalists, including those from The Vancouver Sun, who want to ask whether he shares such Alliance Church doctrines.

Mackey says he "risks embarrassing" Harper by revealing that Harper has been inspired by two British Christian thinkers: C.S. Lewis and Malcolm Muggeridge.

I don't think anyone in the U.S. needs a version of a less open Harper to straighten them out.

But I guess there's good reason why he's kept quiet:

A 2006 Ipsos Reid poll showed the percentage of Canadians willing to vote for a prime minister who is evangelical had fallen 17 percentage points in a decade.

Only 63 per cent of Canadians said they'd vote for a prime minister if he were an evangelical, below the 68 per cent who wouldn't hesitate to vote for an atheist or a Muslim.

Even though two-thirds of Canadians tell pollsters they believe the resurrection of Jesus provides for the forgiveness of sins, just one-fifth share the Alliance Church belief the world will end with the return of Jesus Christ and a cosmic battle called Armageddon.

At any rate - religion isn't the non-entity in Canadian politics that you seem to think it is:

...it appears Canadian voters may be beginning to polarize along religious lines, like Americans.

Andrew Grenville's research for Ipsos Reid shows the 2006 federal election brought the first indication of a new national religious-conservative voting bloc.

http://www.canada.co...96-76f3db32808e

Asked about how faith influences his decisions, Harper said that he prays regularly to “ask for strength and for wisdom.”

But given Canada’s diverse population, he said he’s also careful not to impose “my particular theological views on the country.

“There are times ... where we’re all reassured by the fact that there is you know a benevolent power ultimately looking over all of us,” he said.

http://www.thestar.c...in-tv-interview

Yeah, I'm sure his profound religious beliefs don't affect his policy making decisions - because he doesn't talk much about his faith. While on the other hand, the Republicans are kooks who could learn from Harper. I say no thank you, I have no problem with politicians who are vocal, and not silenced out of 'fear.'

I recall when Harper was running for office that he was quite openly against gay marriage - referring to it as "the true Canadian values."

At any rate, I couldn't care less about Harper's religious beliefs - but then, I don't get all bent out of shape over such beliefs in my own country, either; I simply don't vote for them.

Edited January 3, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Well, it's good that it's obvious to you. It's not so obvious to some who question his beliefs, which he doesn't talk about, as you pointed out.

So I have to wonder what the difference is between Harper and Broun.

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:

I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.

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?

Really? You think simply not talking about it makes one less "evangical?"

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.

Yeah, I'm sure his profound religious beliefs don't affect his policy making decisions - because he doesn't talk much about his faith. While on the other hand, the Republicans are kooks who could learn from Harper.

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

Edited January 6, 2013 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

....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.

But it also appeals to a large number of other voters. Losing the atheist vote has already been factored in !

[kimmy]

But it also appeals to a large number of other voters. Losing the atheist vote has already been factored in !

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

It's not that big a deal....the guy was already elected to office. Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) had no problem as a former Klansman.

Also, many Christians themselves would prefer not to vote for a religious fanatic either.

Some do...some don't. I don't think you understand the political dynamic involved. Some voters want there "religious" interests represented, particularly when it comes to education.

Also, many Christians would probably have been put off by his view that "mainline denominations are sending their people to hell."

Maybe, but it's a very clever political quip for a certain audience. Atheists wouldn't get it.

As it turns out, Broun was elected by acclamation anyway. His only challenge came in the form of write-in votes for Charles Darwin.

Right....it's just not that big a deal. God is alive and well in America....and Canada too.

[Guest American Woman]

God is alive and well in America....and Canada too.

That's the bottom line - and the only point I've been making.

Edited January 6, 2013 by American Woman

[kimmy]

It's not that big a deal....the guy was already elected to office.

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.

Some do...some don't. I don't think you understand the political dynamic involved. Some voters want there "religious" interests represented, particularly when it comes to education.

And some don't.

Maybe, but it's a very clever political quip for a certain audience. Atheists wouldn't get it.

I doubt it's that clever.

Right....it's just not that big a deal. God is alive and well in America....and Canada too.

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

Edited January 6, 2013 by kimmy

[The_Squid]

That's the bottom line - and the only point I've been making.

You're ok with a science committee politician not believing in science?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

It's not a problem unless it diverges away from their base. You ignored my historical reference to Senator Robert Byrd because it doesn't match your preconceived notions. In 2004, George W. Bush defeated a very Catholic John Kerry, but not because of religion.

[Canuckistani]

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

Very well put. And I hope the AMA also investigates an MD who says he doesn't believe in embryology. To me it's way more shocking that an MD can be that crazy, we all know that politicians can.

Anyway, he's well suited for US politics, since we've seen over than over that there are many dim bulbs in the US chandelier. The lights of the city on the hill seem to be flickering.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Canuckistani

[kimmy]

It's not a problem unless it diverges away from their base.

It's a problem because that base is no longer big enough to win elections on its own. The Republicans appear to have greatly overestimated how powerful their base really is. I think the examples of Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin prove what happens when the Republicans alienate everybody who isn't in their base.

You ignored my historical reference to Senator Robert Byrd because it doesn't match your preconceived notions. In 2004, George W. Bush defeated a very Catholic John Kerry, but not because of religion.

Not sure what point the references to Robert Byrd or John Kerry were supposed to make.

-k

[dre]

You're ok with a science committee politician not believing in science?

Yup! Canada does it too!

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a problem because that base is no longer big enough to win elections on its own.

How many states are red...and how many are blue ? The Republicans are far less "endangered" than the Grits in Canada.

Not sure what point the references to Robert Byrd or John Kerry were supposed to make.

The point is that the Democrat party also carried "extreme" candidates on its back for many decades, but still had some success. U.S. demographics are changing regardless of what either party may offer in the way of extreme ideology. The voters will decide what to do about such things, just as they always have.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

The point is that the Democrat party also carried "extreme" candidates on its back for many decades, but still had some success. U.S. demographics are changing regardless of what either party may offer in the way of extreme ideology. The voters will decide what to do about such things, just as they always have.

My point remains that the Republicans seem intent on ignoring the changing demographics and their effect on elections. Despite the blah-blah we heard from some of them after the election about change, it's clear that some of them are intent on stuffing their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

-k