Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[CAC1001]

So, again, I'll ask what empirical evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? It is (after all) foundational to economics.

Various businesses and firms in the economy? You invest more, you can get greater returns, but as you invest more and more, those returns become less and less. For example a company spending money to market their product. After a certain point, the curve representing the people receiving the marketing goes upwards. The company would have to hire people to go out and hunt down every hermit living in the backwoods of Kentucky to tell them about their product.

You never did a fruit-fly lab in a genetics class? I did in both high school and college.

Not in college, no, in high school, I might have, it was a while ago though.

Thats just nonsense. Take several fish tanks (or other clear container), put infrared thermometers in them and fill the boxes with different concentrations of CO2. Now use a a strong incandescent bulb to warm the tanks. Flip the light off, and watch the temperatures as the different tanks cool.

This is easily done at the high school science fair level, and it verifies the central claim of climate change- CO2 traps heat.

I don't think anyone disputes that CO2 traps heat, the questions regarding climate change are more:

1) Is the climate actually changing by any really noticeable amount?
2) If it is, are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere the primary cause, part of the cause, or having no effect whatsoever right now?
3) What effect does the Sun have on the climate?

Remember also that the climate doesn't stay fixed, it has changed a lot through history. We cannot replicate in a lab the effects of releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere because it is just too complex.

Everything else in the "debate" is just piddling details. Is there any experiment half as clean that you can do for economics?

The CO2 experiment is only "clean" in that you're really simplifying it, testing if increased CO2 in a box traps heat. The atmosphere is far more complex. It's like to test for inflation, we have a "money supply" consisting of ten dollars and an "economy" consisting of ten apples. double the money supply and does inflation occur? Yes, now you have $20, so $2 for each apple. But does increasing the money supply in an economy automatically create inflation? Not necessarilly, because an actual economy is far more complex.

Both of these are right-wing parodies of democratic positions- not actual positions.

Maybe not all Democrats, but it seems to be the position of the current and past Democratic party that is in office, for example in how they saw the solution to poverty as lots of government programs. The current Democratic party, their solution to the economy? Massive stimulus spending. The solution to healthcare? Government (preferably a single-payer system, which ignores the fact that a universal healthcare need not be a government-run system). Their solution to the financial system? Massive regulation. Their solution to global warming? More regulations.

There was a time when I would have said these are left wing parodies of right-wing views. Unfortunately the party has shifted so far into crazy that the candidates sign pledges to the effect of all taxes are bad...

Republicans will not sign on to any promises of spending cuts with tax increases because they've done that in the past and gotten shafted. Both parties IMO have gone out there. The Republican party is just getting attention right now because it is the only party holding primaries. I remember back when Barack Obama was running in the Democratic primary and it seemed to be a contest of who could be the furthest to the left. With the Republican candidates, it's a contest of who can be the furthest to the right at the moment.

The current Democratic party answers to the labor unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, and as such, it is difficult for them to do good policy because those constituencies are so far to the Left.

 

[Evo]

Discussions of climate change are banned as they lead to flame wars.

 

[CAC1001]

While the Democratic party has their share of reality deniers as well (more in the alt-med/new age camp, rather than the Christian camp, from my observation), it's not endemic like it is in the Republican Party. A Democrat can get elected while espousing significant non-scientific views (whether they actually believe them or are just pandering). A Republican (almost) can't get elected unless they are espousing significant non-scientific views (again, irrelevant of their actual belief in such topics).

Which un-scientific views must Republicans espouse, other than denial of evolution?

 

[CAC1001]

Discussions of climate change are banned as they lead to flame wars.

I am not arguing for or against it, just explaining why I think it is too complex to be replicated in a lab.

LOL. Those people I linked to in the article are part of Perry's current religious group. Someone said that maybe he was just pretending to be religious to dupe people for votes (which makes him even worse, IMO). He currently chooses to associate with these people, regardless of whether he might be insincere, he is still associating with these people. Nice try though if you are referring to your attempt to slander a journalist because he hadn't always been a journalist. The guy reported accurately in Forbes magazine. That's acceptable. There is nothing similar here.

A politician associating with some very questionable people in order to advance his political career? Nothing new there, Barack Obama did that aplenty. I know you have said you don't/didn't like Obama, but I mean he's president and the world hasn't ended or anything. Not saying it justifies Perry doing it either, but that's politics for you.

 

[Evo]

A politician associating with some very questionable people in order to advance his political career? Nothing new there, Barack Obama did that aplenty. I know you have said you don't/didn't like Obama, but I mean he's president and the world hasn't ended or anything. Not saying it justifies Perry doing it either, but that's politics for you.

But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue. The Governor of Kansas flew to Texas to pray with Perry a week ago. It's looking pretty bad.

 

[mheslep]

...to slander a journalist because he hadn't always been a journalist...

Questioning expertise is not slander. Slander requires false statements.

 

[Evo]

Questioning expertise is not slander. Slander requires false statements.

Ok, disparage.

 

[WhoWee]

But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue. The Governor of Kansas flew to Texas to pray with Perry a week ago. It's looking pretty bad.

A little food for thought - nothing else.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ir...s/2011/08/26/id/408824?s=al&promo_code=CEDB-1

"Iranian authorities began to systematically seize and destroy Bibles after a Shiite cleric issued an urgent warning about the spread of Christianity."

 

[Evo]

A little food for thought - nothing else.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ir...s/2011/08/26/id/408824?s=al&promo_code=CEDB-1

"Iranian authorities began to systematically seize and destroy Bibles after a Shiite cleric issued an urgent warning about the spread of Christianity."

Was Rick Perry behind this? Otherwise, I don't know what connection that has to this thread.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Various businesses and firms in the economy?

Name one? Crack a micro-econ book, and see how many examples they give for real world supply curves.

The CO2 experiment is only "clean" in that you're really simplifying it, testing if increased CO2 in a box traps heat. The atmosphere is far more complex.

Lets avoid specifically discussing global warming (feel free to message me), but keep this in the context of science. Science works by reducing, testing and modeling. The idea is that, yes, things are really complex, so let's isolate the pieces, test them in a controlled environment, and generalize.

Lets turn to your inflation experiment

It's like to test for inflation, we have a "money supply" consisting of ten dollars and an "economy" consisting of ten apples. double the money supply and does inflation occur? Yes, now you have $20, so $2 for each apple. But does increasing the money supply in an economy automatically create inflation? Not necessarily, because an actual economy is far more complex.

You didn't flesh out an actual experiment here. Put money on a table, and apples on a table and nothing happens. You left out the people.

Now, let's say we have 10 people and 10 apples, and everyone has $1, and everyone wants an apple. I imagine the apples will go for $1 each, though I haven't run the experiment.

Now, let's double the supply of money by giving every person $1 more. What is the price of the apples? Probably $2.

Now, let's double the supply of money by giving all $10 to the apple seller. What is the price of the apples? Probably $1

Now, this isn't a real experiment, its a thought experiment (also known as a model). But we did learn something from the model- doubling the supply of money can do different things depending on what you do. By adding a few more layers of complexity, you could probably get a lot of insight out of your apples and dollars game.

What is most interesting is that if you actually run these toy experiments in a lab by playing a game with people, MOST TOY ECONOMIES DON'T FOLLOW STANDARD ECONOMICS PREDICTIONS. See the work of psychologists like Kahneman. People are irrational in predictable ways.

their solution to the economy? Massive stimulus spending.

Actually, it hasn't been massive stimulus, its been paralyzed inaction (which I fault them for, tremendously). Government has been shedding jobs throughout the crisis.

The solution to healthcare? Government (preferably a single-payer system, which ignores the fact that a universal healthcare need not be a government-run system).

The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run. There is no public option. Its a regulated public market. You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?

Their solution to the financial system? Massive regulation.

Actually, Dodd-Frank requires large banks to make plans to unwind banks if they become illiquid. This is to avoid the "too-big too-fail" situation and reduce the need for massive bailouts. The idea being to remove the "big government" induced moral hazard.

Keep in mind that democratic presidents have seen just as much deregulation as republican presidents (Carter lifted the brewing regulations and touched off the microbrew growth in the US, Clinton massively deregulated finance and passed free trade agreements, etc).

Their solution to global warming? More regulations.

Cap and trade (which was the republican solution to global warming in the 90s, actually) is not massive government regulation- its market based. You set a cap, and let the private sector figure out how to come in under the cap. The idea is to avoid complicated micro-managed industry-by-industry regulations.

I would argue the democrat position currently is that "there are sometimes problems that government can solve better than the private sector" and "market failures require the need for some regulations, but its usually best to construct those regulations in a market-oriented way." Its a very centrist party. Its weird but true that 90s Gingrich would be a democrat today (thought 2011 Gingrich has pulled way right).

 

[CAC1001]

But Perry seems to believe this stuff, I've searched and can't find anything that shows he just went over the fundamentalist cliff for this campaign. No, Obama was criticised for the racial views of his pastor, so he changed churches, not even CLOSE to the same issue.

It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public. Keep in mind, Wright had traveled with Louis Farrakhan (a notorious racist) to meet Gaddaffi back in 1984. So he was a pretty questionable association.

That said, I am not disagreeing with your criticisms of Perry, just pointing out that I mean this kind of stuff in politics isn't new.

 

[WhoWee]

The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run. There is no public option. Its a regulated public market. You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?

Was it Newt's version or Nixon's version that required personal mandates enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS? As for the term "government run" - you can't be serious - or is there a slight difference between mandates and control of every aspect versus "run" that allows this comment?

 

[Evo]

It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public. Keep in mind, Wright had traveled with Louis Farrakhan (a notorious racist) to meet Gaddaffi back in 1984. So he was a pretty questionable association.

That said, I am not disagreeing with your criticisms of Perry, just pointing out that I mean this kind of stuff in politics isn't new.

I'm not concerned about shenanigans in politics, I'm concerned about christian fundamentalists taking over our country. Very scary to think we might lose the separation of church and state this country was founded on and have a church run country.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is very close an issue. He had spent twenty years in the church, with the Reverand Wright as his spiritual advisor. He resigned his membership only after the radical remarks of the Reverand Wright became public.

For the record, Obama resigned his membership after Wright held a press conference and went over the edge.

If you ever went back and watched the entire original Wright sermon, you would find that he never said "God damn America.". What he said was, "God damn American IF" we don't do the following...[humanitarian issues listed]. But the media always cut the clip for the desired effect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If Obama wasn't up to the task (ethics classes would have taught him) he should have disclosed his lack of knowledge - or he could have dropped out of the race. Instead, he and Biden claimed to have all of the answers.

Now you are just posting ideological nonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

in which case the man lacks integrity and is a hypocrite

Dawkins isn't running for President or a leading candidate for the Republican party.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Was it Newt's version or Nixon's version that required personal mandates enforced by a massive expansion of the IRS?

Both had mandates. Nixon's plan had a strict mandate for employers, while Newt has long supported the individual mandate in Obama's plan (read his book Real Change and the section on healthcare.)

Also, how massive an expansion of the IRS? 2%? 3%?

 

[WhoWee]

Now you are just posting ideological nonsense.

I supported my comment with then President-elect Obama's website.

 

[Evo]

This thread is about the problems with Rick Perry. Let's stay on topic.

 

[CAC1001]

Name one? Crack a micro-econ book, and see how many examples they give for real world supply curves.

Mattel? (just throwing out a random name). Mattel engages in marketing programs for Barbie, but I mean after a certain point, spending more money results in very few additional people learning about Barbie.

Lets avoid specifically discussing global warming (feel free to message me), but keep this in the context of science. Science works by reducing, testing and modeling. The idea is that, yes, things are really complex, so let's isolate the pieces, test them in a controlled environment, and generalize.

Lets turn to your inflation experiment

You didn't flesh out an actual experiment here. Put money on a table, and apples on a table and nothing happens. You left out the people.

Now, let's say we have 10 people and 10 apples, and everyone has $1, and everyone wants an apple. I imagine the apples will go for $1 each, though I haven't run the experiment.

Now, let's double the supply of money by giving every person $1 more. What is the price of the apples? Probably $2.

Now, let's double the supply of money by giving all $10 to the apple seller. What is the price of the apples? Probably $1

Now, this isn't a real experiment, its a thought experiment (also known as a model). But we did learn something from the model- doubling the supply of money can do different things depending on what you do. By adding a few more layers of complexity, you could probably get a lot of insight out of your apples and dollars game.

What is most interesting is that if you actually run these toy experiments in a lab by playing a game with people, MOST TOY ECONOMIES DON'T FOLLOW STANDARD ECONOMICS PREDICTIONS. See the work of psychologists like Kahneman. People are irrational in predictable ways.

That's what I am saying though, lab experiments for something like economics or the climate are not going to give accurate information about such complex systems.

Actually, it hasn't been massive stimulus, its been paralyzed inaction (which I fault them for, tremendously). Government has been shedding jobs throughout the crisis.

The government enacted a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, but that said, some prominent Democrats say the solution is that there hasn't been enough spending, and call for a lot more (such as Paul Krugman for example).

The "obamacare" bill (which has a striking resemblance to both Newt Gingrich's health care bill from the 90s and Nixon's health care bill) is NOT a single payer bill, nor is it government run.

A few points here:

1) The Republicans in the early-to-mid 1990s did have an alternative healthcare plan to Hillarycare that included a mandate to purchase health insurance. But this has never been an idea popular with conservatives or libertarians, it was a Republican party idea and a prime example of when Republican voters talk about how the Republican party leadership has too often deviated from what its principles are supposed to be. Quite a few Republicans were concerned about the existence of the mandate in the Republican plan at the time.

2) Richard Nixon was a member of the Republican party, but he is a man who created the EPA, was for universal healthcare, was for gun control, I mean he wasn't a standard conservative Republican.

3) The bill is not "officially" single-payer, but it is single-payer by proxy, because it puts the government in charge of the health insurance companies, so in a sense it is government-run. The health insurance companies gave up a lot of freedom in exchange for being subsidized. Also, Democrats have longed for a single-payer system for years, they only didn't try to outright nationalize the system because they saw doing so as too complex an operation. Barack Obama stated how he wanted to create a "Medicare for all" during the campaign.

There is no public option. Its a regulated public market.

There's a public option. People are required to either purchase health insurance, or else pay a fine (or tax). If they are too poor to do either, then they are subsidized.

You seem to be suggesting that the legislation that the democrats passed is somehow not their solution to healthcare?

No, the legislation they passed is their solution to healthcare.

Actually, Dodd-Frank requires large banks to make plans to unwind banks if they become illiquid. This is to avoid the "too-big too-fail" situation and reduce the need for massive bailouts. The idea being to remove the "big government" induced moral hazard.

That's the idea, but there are lots of regulations from the bill that thus far have yet to be written, and there are differing opinions on the bill (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/is-dodd-frank-overdue-or-overkill-2-dueling-views/")

Keep in mind that democratic presidents have seen just as much deregulation as republican presidents (Carter lifted the brewing regulations and touched off the microbrew growth in the US,

Yup, he also signed trucking and airlines deregulation. Some think that is partially what sank his presidency because of how the Democratic party saw it at the time.

Clinton massively deregulated finance and passed free trade agreements, etc).

He completed NAFTA (which had been started by Reagan) after being resistant to at first and signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, but this was with a Republican Congress, and the Democratic party did not like Clinton doing this from what I understand.

Cap and trade (which was the republican solution to global warming in the 90s, actually) is not massive government regulation- its market based. You set a cap, and let the private sector figure out how to come in under the cap. The idea is to avoid complicated micro-managed industry-by-industry regulations.

Yes, cap-and-trade is a market-based solution that was conjured up by Republicans, and one that worked fine from my understanding with regards to pollutants such as sulfure dioxide and carbon monoxide and so forth from coal plants. But that's because the technology exists to filter those pollutants out of the carbon emissions. But with regards to the carbon dioxide emissions themselves, there is no way to "filter" or capture those. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less coal, which means raising the cost of energy or switching to alternatives. If legitimate alternative sources existed that could be implemented quickly, that might work, but they don't. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc...none are viable alternatives right now. So because of this, cap-and-trade would act as a tax on the economy.

Since the administration couldn't get cap-and-trade through the Congress though, they are seeking to regulate carbon directly through the EPA, which is going to be very difficult for industry.

I would argue the democrat position currently is that "there are sometimes problems that government can solve better than the private sector" and "market failures require the need for some regulations, but its usually best to construct those regulations in a market-oriented way." Its a very centrist party.

Well some Democrats, the kind I like, are like that, but much of the party is a lot more leftwing than that.

Its weird but true that 90s Gingrich would be a democrat today (thought 2011 Gingrich has pulled way right).

In some ways, he would've been.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I supported my comment with then President-elect Obama's website.

I was talking about your commentary.

No, the economy has not recovered as much as we had hoped. We did avoid a total collapse and a it seems the dreaded double dip. I call that a huge success given the mess he was handed by the Republicans. That we were spiralling out of control when Obama took over is undeniable. As far as I'm concerned, you are just shifting blame and ignoring the facts. The Republicans and conservative principles caused this mess. Don't blame Obama if he can't fix the worst economy since the depression, in three years. It took the Republicans and Clinton twelve years to create the housing crisis. And as you know, I put Reaganomics at the heart of the debt problem. Our debt problem can be traced back directly to the Reagan Admin.

 

[Evo]

No more off topic posts. Let's discuss the topic of Rick Perry's religious affiliations and beliefs. Is someone like Perry a danger to the US? Can he bring anything of value to the presidency, or is he a pawn of organized religion?

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not concerned about shenanigans in politics, I'm concerned about christian fundamentalists taking over our country. Very scary to think we might lose the separation of church and state this country was founded on and have a church run country.

Christian fundamentalists can't take over the country, or they'd have a really hard time doing so. Remember, we have a House, a Senate, and a Presidency, along with a Supreme Court. And separation of church and state is in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...").

 

[WhoWee]

Both had mandates. Nixon's plan had a strict mandate for employers, while Newt has long supported the individual mandate in Obama's plan (read his book Real Change and the section on healthcare.)

Also, how massive an expansion of the IRS? 2%? 3%?

I suppose it's fair to question 2% or 3% (do you have a source?) - it's doubtful anyone knows the real cost?

As you've described - neither plan (Newt or Nixon) proposed the personal mandate enforced by the IRS - correct? If you disagree - why not post specific support?
*******

I was looking for something else and stumbled back into this story regarding projected costs to business.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/healthcare-costs-business-taxes/2010/03/31/id/354413

"Obamacare's Prescription for Disaster: $14 Billion Cost to Industry"
*****
Perhaps a little more relevant to this thread is Perry's assessment of the costs to Texas - my bold.
http://focusdailynews.com/statement-by-gov-rick-perry-on-federal-appeals-court-ruling-on-obamacare-p4543-1.htm
"Texas and 25 other states have challenged the constitutionality of Congress’ authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. This administration continues to spend excessively and impose unfunded mandates upon the states, including this federal health care reform bill that will cost Texas taxpayers more than $27 billion over 10 years for the Medicaid expansion starting in 2014."

 

[WhoWee]

It seems Perry is being vetted thoroughly on the issue of religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085641-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"

But again, the longer the left and the media beat this issue into the ground - and the rhetoric of extreme politics (left and right) are the drum beat - and President Obama pushes more spending - if Romney keeps it low key, straight down the middle and maintains the drumbeat of Obama is inexperienced and in over his head - Romney will waltz into the White House as the reasonable and experienced moderate (IMO).

 

[turbo]

It seems Perry is being vetted thoroughly on the issue of religion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085641-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"

But again, the longer the left and the media beat this issue into the ground - and the rhetoric of extreme politics (left and right) are the drum beat - and President Obama pushes more spending - if Romney keeps it low key, straight down the middle and maintains the drumbeat of Obama is inexperienced and in over his head - Romney will waltz into the White House as the reasonable and experienced moderate (IMO).

Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs. If Perry has been attending church with a pastor that has controversial views, will the Democrats claim that the pastor is his "Spritual Advisor"? The GOP hauled that one out against Obama, but I don't see the Dems pulling that crap on Perry They should be quite willing to address his willful ignorance and populist anti-intelluctualism, though. Dawkins is right, IMO, about the right's embrace of dumbed-down candidates. Our leaders should be the best of the brightest, not the people who can scuff their feet in the dirt and say "aw shucks" like the guy next door.

 

[Evo]

I'd like to strip all of the affiliations away from the candidates and have them all answer the same questions on government, science, and academics. I can think up a great quiz. Of course the winner will be feared by those that can't figure out the answers to the quiz.

There is no hope for this country.

 

[turbo]

I'd like to strip all of the affiliations away from the candidates and have them all answer the same questions on government, science, and academics. I can think up a great quiz. Of course the winner will be feared by those that can't figure out the answers to the quiz.

There is no hope for this country.

I'd like to propose this question: "What periodicals do you read?" When Katy asks a killer question, she doesn't fool around.

 

[mege]

Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs. If Perry has been attending church with a pastor that has controversial views, will the Democrats claim that the pastor is his "Spritual Advisor"? The GOP hauled that one out against Obama, but I don't see the Dems pulling that crap on Perry They should be quite willing to address his willful ignorance and populist anti-intelluctualism, though. Dawkins is right, IMO, about the right's embrace of dumbed-down candidates. Our leaders should be the best of the brightest, not the people who can scuff their feet in the dirt and say "aw shucks" like the guy next door.

So the Governor of one of the most (the most?) successful states the last few years isn't a good qualifier? A better president is someone with no executive experience and limited legislative experience?

Nearly all of the indictments that have been made against "Perry and the GOP" in this thread have been basically arguements reduced to the absurd or basic anti-religious sentiment. No real empirical evidence of their policy wrongdoings, due to their beliefs, has been demonstrated (despite Perry having years under his belt as a governor). The policy implications of their religious beliefs are minimal, esspecially when the major issues are economic currently. Even though I am not religious in the least, I would still prefer a religious candidate with a proven executive record (esspecially in the current economic crisis) than an inexperienced aethiest.

I echo CAC1001's sentiment that the actual moralistic policy implications of even the most socially conservative President would be minimal because of the checks and balances that exist in our government. The major campaigns against 43 in 2000 and 2004 was his extreme anti-abortion policies that he would destroy women with. What did he do to restrict abortions? What abortion restrictions even became fruit in his terms? (Partial-birth ban had support from all but the most extreme abortion activists) I think the abortion argument is tired and has limited policy implications. It will take overturning Roe v Wade for a president to ban abortion or significant limit their availability. In my mind the abortion arguements, from both sides, are really just to rile their base without any implication on a national policy level.

I think it's also important to note that not all policy decisions are scientific - the relationships that exist in a church setting instill a certain sense of community that I can see the benefit of. I'd rather have the accountability to our President be churchgoers as opposed to the unions and other corrupt special interests. Is a GOP candidate going to make a mandate that all states legalize gay marriage? Absolutely not, but... neither has the 'gay friendly' President Obama. Again, what anti-gay policies did President Bush oversee? Remember that the 'gay' policies (DOMA & DADT) that President Obama overturned via (possibly non-constitutional) non-enforcement rules were Clinton-era policies. So I argue, again, a non-issue (or incredibly overblown) from a policy standpoint.

So, what does matter from a policy standpoint? Actual executive experience, not some ideology that gets overblown. I think that this has been the biggest fault of President Obama, he's been frozen by indecision because (as Romney says) he's in over his head.

 

[WhoWee]

Nobody running for high office has been vetted thoroughly WRT to their beliefs.

Assuming your statement is correct - then Perry will be the first to be vetted for his religious views as evidenced by this CBS article I posted?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...41-503544.html
"Will Rick Perry answer the religious right's prayers?"

 

[CAC1001]

One thing on evolution, Christians will never accept evolution because it completely undermines the core of their belief system. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, original sin being a condition that taints all of humanity and according to Christians is why humans are so violent and, well, sinful (this is the explanation for why a world God created that was meant to be perfect, is instead very violent). Because Jesus is sinless and divine, we have to go through him to reach God. But evolution completely takes Adam and Eve out of the equation, which means there was no original sin, which means Jesus did not die (or did not need to die) to save humanity from original sin, and also that Jesus is not the sole path to God. It also means if there is a God, that it created a rather violent world, as opposed to a perfect world that Satan, the fallen angel, screwed up.

America is a nation emphasizing freedom of religion, so I don't mind if a presidential candidate, due to their religious beliefs, flat-out doesn't believe in evolution. What I mind is if they want to push their religious views onto others, or if they want to infringe on science just because it goes against their religion.

 

[Evo]

Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html

Perry wrong about use of executive orders

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ve-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/

Big Money bought him his 1998 victory

Per the Dallas Morning News: "In some quarters, he's seen as saving Perry's political career with a last-minute infusion of $1.1 million to fuel Perry's 1998 victory as lieutenant governor. Perry was in a tight race against Democrat John Sharp when Leininger guaranteed the $1.1 million loan to Perry's campaign. That allowed a $1 million advertizing blitz and helped him squeak out a victory."

Perry wrong about Texas schools teaching creationism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-says-texas-pub_n_930858.html

Perry wrong about use of executive orders

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ve-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/

Big Money bought him his 1998 victory

Per the Dallas Morning News: "In some quarters, he's seen as saving Perry's political career with a last-minute infusion of $1.1 million to fuel Perry's 1998 victory as lieutenant governor. Perry was in a tight race against Democrat John Sharp when Leininger guaranteed the $1.1 million loan to Perry's campaign. That allowed a $1 million advertizing blitz and helped him squeak out a victory."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7474090-perry-to-huddle-with-donors-evangelical-supporters

I've got more, will post tomorrow, too tired tonight.

 

[NeoDevin]

Which un-scientific views must Republicans espouse, other than denial of evolution?

Young Earth creationism alone requires denial of: biology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and cosmology (and a whole lot of subtopics in each).

Strict biblical literalism, in addition to the above, requires a complete denial of basic history.

There are many denominations of Christianity that do not require the above denial of reality, but they are not the ones that appear prominent in the Republican party.

The push for abstinence only sex education is in complete denial of all evidence of what constitutes effective sex education. Further, abstinence only sex education actually significantly increases the frequency of abortion, which most Republicans claim to want to avoid. The best evidence says that comprehensive sex education greatly reduces teen pregnancy and therefore need/want for abortion. If the republicans were able to analyse evidence instead of sticking to their ideology, they would all be supporting comprehensive sex education for children.

Opposition to women's health clinics. This ties into above, in that if you make birth control harder to get, you end up with more unwanted pregnancies, and hence, more abortions.

Opposition to HPV vaccination in young girls is another example. Being vaccinated against HPV virtually eliminates the risk of cervical cancer, which would significantly save health care dollars (never mind lives). Yet many republicans oppose it because "it will promote promiscuity by taking away the fear of consequences for sex".

I'm sure there are more examples, but I've just finished working a 12 hour day, and am barely coherent anymore.

I think I've made my point though. Even on issues such as abortion, where I completely disagree with the Republicans, they are unable to use the best evidence to achieve their goals. Instead of actually working to reduce the incidence abortions, they would rather just ram their ideology down everyone's throat in the form of abstinence only sex education, while working to outlaw and defund women's health clinics, reducing the availability of birth control.

 

[NeoDevin]

Christian fundamentalists can't take over the country, or they'd have a really hard time doing so. Remember, we have a House, a Senate, and a Presidency, along with a Supreme Court. And separation of church and state is in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...").

And yet the declaration of independence hasn't been changed back to the original wording yet...

Even on your money you have religion.

 

[NeoDevin]

One thing on evolution, Christians will never accept evolution because it completely undermines the core of their belief system.

Many Christians already accept evolution. Such as Catholics, Unitarians, and many of the sub-denominations of other groups.