| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
>Dear Paleo-Netters > >Lisa Park's message does not convey by half the seriousness of the >situation following Tuesday's political disaster. George Bush is >merely the figurehead at the lead of a militant group of >self-righteous religious zealots that will not stop until all >others are either converted, marginalized, or eliminated (take that >last one as you see fit, but remember they are also the most ardent >supporters of the death penalty). It may be that Bush himself does >not realize all the repercussions of his administration and their >ideology-driven politics, although I do not give him the benefit of >this doubt. Those at the top of his government make their choices >based on greed and self-interest, knowing their government-supported >increased wealth can insulate them from the detrimental effects of >their decisions. Perhaps I don't have the "hell in a handbasket" feeling that some other Paleonetters have because I live in a solidly 'blue' state (in a county-Tompkins- that is practically indigo). I am hardly one to defend religious zealots, but is it fair to conflate them with people who's "choices [are] based on greed and self-interest"? >"Moral values" as a political issue is presented as a reasonable >conservative stance on abortion, gays, and embryos. In reality >it is part of a smokescreen for a broad agenda that centers on >fundamentalist religious dogma as the fundamental law of the land >(sound familiar?). Substitute "word of God as in the bible" for the >Sharia and the word of the prophet and you can see where the >American religious right is heading. Same basic outcome, the >difference is in a few details. Scientific methods, research, >critical thinking and independent thought represent their mortal >enemies and are incompatible with the "true faith". Somehow we have gone from writing about "evangelical" Christians, of which Bush is avowedly one, to writing about "fundamentalist" Christians, which is a different kettle of fish and definitely a more germane group for geologists/paleontologists to be concerned about. As far as I am aware evangelicals don't necessarily hold with a literal interpretation of the Bible, while fundamentalists most certainly do. Evangelical Christians are going to come down on the "anti-progressive" side of the right to choose and stem cell research, as are a lot of strict Catholics. But I don't think you will find them to be unified on the subject of evolution (as Prof. Mahaffy notes) or even environmental protection. Bill -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ William P. Chaisson Adjunct Assistant Professor Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627
Partial index: