And if you dig into this piece by TBogg on the recent GOP presidential debate, you learn that:
- there were 10 candidates
- they were all white males
- apparently, three of them don't believe in evolution
And if you don't think it can get any worse, only three of them were ready to admit publicly that they don't believe in evolution. I'm guessing there's at least one or two closet cases there.
And by "closet case," I don't mean in the interesting way. Or maybe I do.
AFTERSNARK: The Blogging Tories' le politico says pretty much what I was thinking:
I'm sorry, but belief in evolution should be a Presidential prerequisite.
to which commenter "paul m" responds with unintentional hilarity:
US Constitution; First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
By suggesting that a belief in evolution should be required for holding the executive branch, you are establishing a religious test for that position. That is completely contrary to the spirit of the US Constitution an its writers.
Um ... Paul ... we're not talking about a religious test here, we're talking about an intelligence test. It's not that the President shouldn't be a Christian, but that he shouldn't be a moron. And if you choose to conflate those two issues, well, I'd suggest that says a lot more about you than about the rest of us.
P.S. Anyone who doesn't understand the dangers of having a moron as President simply hasn't been paying attention.
ATHEISTIC AFTERTHOUGHTS: It's mildly amusing to hear "paul m" whinging on about the unconstitutionality of religious tests for public office in the U.S. when the chances of an atheist ever getting elected President are about the same as the proverbial snowball in hell.
People with long memories might remember George Bush I's opinion of the godless:
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
More recently, we have distinguished constitutional scholar Star Jones:
Star Jones is a lawyer and former prosecutor who is currently a co-host of ABC's show "The View". Her web site is http://www.starjones.com/. She mocked Atheists who were concerned about her bigoted views. Jones intimated that Atheists are unpatriotic, while falsely claiming that the secular complaint had been in response to patriotic remarks she made on September 12, 2001. On February 13, 2002, Jones said that, in her opinion, Atheists are unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States.
I'm guessing that that's about where Paul loses interest in constitutionality and stuff like that there, if you catch my drift.
4 comments:
Y'know, my great-grandfather was an anglican minister. Apparently he had a little trouble being ordained, in '03, because the bishop didn't care for his newfangled ideas about evolution, but, you know, by 07' they had that little problem worked out, and ordained he was.
Sheesh. A whole lot of religious people managed to deal with the idea of evolution a hundred years ago. Anyone still whining at this point can be fairly described as a moron who has failed to evolve.
It's the "Great Dumbing Down" we're witnessing. When you don't know anything, any event in the real world can seem like an article of faith. Apparently, Paul M. doesn't even understand the difference between a scientific theory and faith.
Isn't that scary? And these people can work computers and type and everything.
It's a strategy frame job by the movement xtians. Nothing if not canny, they've repositioned atheism as being just another belief system to their base, so they can cry martyrdom and favoritism when rationalists point out inconvenient truths. I suspect the Positive Atheism website people keep a large supply of aspirin on hand since said 'base' whacks them with this on a continual basis.
The problem lies not with the Constitution allowing people with weird beliefs to run for office, but rather with an electorate willing to consider voting for such candidates.
Post a Comment