A Tale Of Two Republicans
Currently there are two posts on the blogoshere written by Delaware Republicans. Over at TommyWonk, Michael Stafford lays out why religious beliefs and science are compatible. He states, correctly, that in order to understand the Right’s anti-science stance one must understand that it’s rooted in religion – and not a particularly deep religion.
As a result, any understanding of opposition to AGW (anthropomorphic global warming), or of the apparent anti-intellectualism in segments of the GOP today, must begin with a discussion of religion and theology—specifically, the anti-intellectual theology underpinning elements of the fundamentalist Christian Right. In this regard, climate denial is merely one aspect of a broader rejection of reason and scientific inquiry.
With respect to the environment, these theological strains tend to place great emphasis on humanity’s “dominion” over the Earth, but downplay or entirely ignore our concomitant responsibility for the stewardship of it. In so doing, they provide a false reading of the Book of Genesis, one that ignores the connotations of nurturing and care present in the original Hebrew text in favor of an interpretation emphasizing naked power and supremacy. Simply put, the Biblical mandate is to care for creation, not to commodify and exploit it.
[…]
In the end, a theology that requires the rejection of empirical evidence on a variety of topics, and an escapist descent into magical thinking, is not a living faith. It is a dead one. Such a faith is not spiritual armor for the believer going out into the world, but rather, an intellectual tomb for someone hiding from it.
Let me suggest something different. Faith and reason are not at war–or at least, do not need to be. Religious belief and rational inquiry, faith and doubt, are not binary pairs of opposites. Indeed, at a fundamental level, both religion and science remind us of the deep mystery underpinning the world, and our existence in it. Scientific inquiry also expands our knowledge of the natural world and the universe which, we are told in Genesis, is a reflection of God. This is why learning, the quest for knowledge and understanding, is a sacred thing. Or as Pope Benedict XVI has taught, religious faith “consolidates, integrates and illuminates truth[s] acquired by human reason.” For my own part, I think God gave us our minds, our intellects, and our capacity to reason, in the hope that we would put them to use advancing the common good.
Go read the whole thing. It is well worth your time.
Onto the next post by David Anderson over at Delaware Politics:
Most likely American voters surveyed understand that “global warming” is not primarily caused by people. They understand it is a liberal thing to blame us for living.
Moving past the awkward sentence structure and the fact that the poll was conducted by Rasmussen (cross tabs available for 19.95), we see David Anderson’s concern is political, which is fine since no one would ever accuse him of being scientifically literate. Although someone might want to remind him that at a certain period of time most people polled would have agreed that the earth was flat. Also, David has had no trouble tying global warming to god.
Now, if anyone can tell me how these two Republicans can unite… I’m all ears. And this split isn’t about climate change – you could substitute a variety of topics and have the same results – it’s about religion and the way the Right uses “god’s will” as an excuse to do nothing… and everything.
At this point, Michael Stafford is not a Republican anymore. Oh he may consider himself one, but his fellow Republicans consider him to be a RINO. For if you embrace science, you reject God, and vice versa. There is no gray anymore in the Republican Party. There is no “hand in hand.” The name of the highway that party is on is called Mutually Exclusive Expressway. It explains why Newt Gingrich has flip flopped eleven times in the last eleven days: because he has to be against what Barack Obama is for.
Agreed. Staffy, still goes in for all the discredited trickle down bullshit that Republicans love, but beyond that it is impossible to reconcile what he has written with modern Republicanism.
The first guy wants to cut the kid in half. David just wants to drown the kid to make it shut up. Both are still trying to have it their way.
To the broader question, yes science and religion can live side-by-side, but the onus is on religion to acquiesce once evidence is provided that refutes a particular part of faith.
Which makes 2012 very interesting. Could Michael Stafford and David Anderson ever support the same R candidate? I doubt it.
Christian Republicans like Andersen are drunk from having their asses kissed for 40 years by craven office seekers. They’ll sober up if they lose a bunch of elections.
Von Cracker, The onus isn’t on Religion to do anything. The onus is on science to hit religion on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
I agree J, just trying to be..er..diplomatic. 🙂
Diplomatic? Turning over a new leaf, VC? 👿
@VC “yes science and religion can live side-by-side”
The scientific method based on inquiry is the antithesis of faith. Faith is one of the three false virtues (along with piety and righteousness).
The ONLY way that science and religion can truly coexist is when the religious limit the spreading of their belief set to things that are beyond scientific inquiry. Using religion to explain the natural world has always been totally stupid, and always will be.
“Christian Republicans like Andersen”
I wonder if part of the point isn’t to take back those two hijacked terms, Christian, and Republican. Perhaps a belief that the extremists can’t be left to define what words mean.
Yeah, I don’t like calling David Anderson a Christian. In no way does his politics follow the teachings of Christ our Lord. Thus, for now on, we will refer to David Anderson as radical Christianist extremist David Anderson.
Thanks for the link. I am interested in efforts to foster greater discussion of environmental issues among people of faith. I posted Mike’s piece because I found it to be a thoughtful and well written essay on the subject.
Yes P. Trying to be a more understanding asshole. 😉
And Lib Elite, you just reiterated my last sentence. If a religious type wants to believe his SkyDad did something because there are no scientific answers to the question, that’s fine by me. But, and this goes with all the religious mumbo-jumbo, don’t ever try to make policy or legislation out of it because that’s just bullshit fantasy to begin with.
I have no issue with folks who want to be self-delusional, as long as it’s not affecting others.
I once saw a show at Fels Planetarium.
It was:”The Last Question”,written by Isaac Asimov.
The question was:Can entropy be reversed?
Or more simply,will the universe continue to expand or retract due to thermo-dynamic exponential forces beyond our comprehension?
And the universe did contract to a singularity.
The complete intelligence of the humans,sans bodies,was left to a computer.
It worked the problem for…..what?…Time meant nothing.
Finally, he had the solution.
And God said: LET THERE BE LIGHT!
I just read that short story. Asimov regarded it as his favorite.
@VC “And Lib Elite, you just reiterated my last sentence.”
Not really. You basically said religion should abandon natural world explanations when scientific evidence is to the contrary. I said that religion shouldn’t go there in the first place.
Why can’t religious people be content with: “We just don’t know the answer to that yet.”
“can entropy be reversed” ? HECK YES–dangle the car keys in front of your teens, when it’s time to clean the garage or basement! 🙂
I don’t think I said that. My point was that when scientific evidence arises, which condradicts their faith, then they need to accept it. But in the meantime, if it makes them feel better to “take ownership” of an unknown, I have no problem with it, as long as it’s personal and doesn’t creep into politics, etc.
But that’s me just trying to be nice. Normally, my position would be basically the same as yours…..new leaf and such. 😀
@jason330- I guess you have to read the story or see the Planetarium show to understand Asimov’s attempt to reconcile the beliefs of man.
I expect there are people who have an honest faith but they are not the right-wing Republicans. What they have is a serious case of passive-aggression masquerading as religion. They use skydad as a front for their own greed, bigotry, and small-mindedness.
Oh, and they should be really glad there is no skydad because if there were he’d be really pissed at them.
“I expect there are people who have an honest faith but they are not the right-wing Republicans. What they have is a serious case of passive-aggression masquerading as religion. They use skydad as a front for their own greed, bigotry, and small-mindedness.”
Few words written on the continuing value of religion for some people contain more insight than those by Auntie Dem. I am not the least bit religioius. But I cannot deny that for some individuals religion has made them into exemplary moral and humanitarian persons. That’s the problem with the rightwing religionists. They are not moral, humanitarian, or exemplary. They are petty, mean-spirited, stingy, and sometimes dangerous.
Liberal atheists can be just as adept at rejecting empirical evidence as religionists if the evidence makes them uncomfortable. Do a search: The First Scandal. Then click twice.
Robert: Can you provide a link? All sorts of things come up with a search for “first scandal.”
Oh dear.
You can’t claim any real familiarity with “empirical evidence” if you start presuming that Bible Stories are real.
Before the election. a CNN interviewer, asked a candidate, “Is global warming man made? Does it contribute to global warming? “I don’t have an opinion on that” was the republican candidate’s evasive reply. How could such a person be called a ‘leader,’ to determine national policy?
In an Examiner article of Pete DuPont’s support of O’Donnell, regarding cap and trade, O’Donnell was quoted as saying, “Nobody wants this bill. This bill is a national energy tax that will ration energy use and increase our utility bills.”
Utility bills are an issue “God” would be concerned with?
Grist reported, “all GOP candidates for U.S. Senate deny the need for climate action.”
Briefly, 1 in 5 plants, 1 in 5 mammals, 1 in 7 birds and 1 in 3 amphibians are now globally threatened with extinction by global warming. Volumes more could be listed here.
The questions would be:
Why are republicans unconcerned, that the Artic ice cap won’t exist in less then 30 years, the ocean will acidify, climates change, etc?
Why are republicans more interested in financial gains rather than over-pollution of the planet?
Why does the condition of the environment that is being left to future generations, also not matter to republicans?
Why have republicans ‘developed’ extremist voices to demonize science and demonize peer reviewed scientific facts regarding global warming?
Has environmental destruction become the ‘religion’ of the extreme right?
The answers may be in the same old answer; it’s all about the money and what the wealthy demand to have now.
There is no moral compass regarding a republican’s altered reality – involving global warming denial, or hazardous industrial waste stockpiling (disposal,) or nuclear spent fuel stockpiles; or the changing composition of air and water around the planet; the changing weather patterns; mountain top removals; poisonous fracking for gas; the industrial over production and man’s releasing of many potent greenhouse chemicals, etc.
When it’s all about the money, it’s about making more, while spending less. It’s what republicans demand. It’s about the legislation they want – to do what they want, ‘legally.’
It’s the driving force of the ‘religion’ of environmental destruction. Nature is replaced by the poisoned dumping grounds, the treeless forests, the missing mountain tops, the poisoned waters, the altered air, the acidic oceans, the flooding shores, etc.
Republican Mike Castle knew global warming was/is real and he backed cap and trade, only to be back stabbed by traders of his own party’s greediest.
These ‘republicans’ have now moved even further to the extreme right. It’s still about the money. Their marching orders are more fossil fuels, more nuclear, with a hatred of scientific intelligence not to their financial benefit as well as a disdain for people who don’t financially benefit them.
If republicans could put a price tag on a barrel of wind and a rod of sun, starving children, a ravaged nation, they would become interested.
A hatred of the continuation of the natural world illuminates the endless, mindless, godless lust for fossil fuel power and special interest money that filthy, polluting, 19th century energy provides. It is an ongoing, voracious orgy of worldwide destruction. The earth and childrens’ futures are on the auction block.
God Bless America
The fossil fuel billionaires, investors, etc. will search for the perfect sheeple herders; will tell them whatever it takes, so that the eternally greedy, can groom the local votes with hate, denial, destruction. Chemical pollution has became the cup of contaminated deadly tea with the big payoff – tea party espre$$o.
What the billionaire backers want (besides more money,) are votes at voting time – numbers. The sheeple who are momentarily feeling important, are no more than disposable numbers. Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck provide sheeple thoughts (calling them ‘good,’ religious even,) as the local soulless will herd voters to push the dead end ‘R” button. Baaa Baaaaa
Just as surely as there is faux news, there is faux religion that deals in the destruction of the environment on a global scale, including life that depends on it.
The word “Liberty” is often heard among the new radical right. Men are born with a capacity to accumulate, store and utilize knowledge. A man has a will to choose; a conscience to decide.
There would be no purpose in cultivating intelligence, if it is not to be used. When a man’s mind is enlightened with knowledge, his eyes opened through understanding, his soul awakened to righteousness, the liberty he chooses, should not be the destruction of nature and life that has been eternally depend upon nature that supports all known life. It is a eternal chemical, mathematical, scientific planet upon which life exists. To deny nature, is to deny oneself and all life. To worship money above life, is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense. Environmental destruction in exchange for dollars, should be called what it is – pure evil.
Take a few minutes to listen to Curleys show on WGMD. He and his listeners are of the opinion that G-d has given us everything we need on earth and when its gone G-d will take all of the religious, lying nutjobs like them up to heaven. The faster we use it all up and destroy it the faster they’ll be with G-d. Most of them think the end times are NOW, how could it be otherwise when there’s a black man in the White House?
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr.