The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Diebrock]

That is so scary when you think about the possible consequences. What's next? Denial of evolution?

www.theday.com

Quote:

---

Bush's Goofball Science

By TOM TEEPEN



A report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, catches the Bush administration red-handed distorting and suppressing politically awkward scientific findings and boosting ideology-driven panaceas that ignore overwhelming contrary research. This is political correctness of an extraordinarily reckless sort.



The report was prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Government Reform. Forget its partisan origins. This is a picture that should disturb Republicans perhaps most of all. What is the future of a governing party that founds its policies on loopy pseudo-science?



The classic case: Soviet agriculture was undermined for years by Stalin's sponsorship of goofball biologist T.D. Lysenko, whose wrongheaded theories, especially in genetics, were embraced as serving Marxist orthodoxy. A whole generation of Russian biology was lost to his wild goose chases.



To promote drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Interior Secretary Gale Norton told Congress that most caribou calve outside the target area when her agency's own scientists reported just the opposite.



The U.S. Department of Agriculture now requires its scientists to get special permission to speak out about “agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences.” That's specifically so in matters of water contamination, hazardous materials and animal feeding and other operations that harm soil, water or air quality.



And, sure enough, research about industrial hog farms that might have sparked calls for regulation has been suppressed by the administration.



The National Cancer Institute was pressured to scrap a finding, supported by extensive research, that abortion does not cause breast cancer.



At the behest of anti-abortion groups, a claim that the question is up in the air was substituted.



Information about serious environmental problems was edited out of a report on Yellowstone Park, and the Corps of Engineers reversed itself under political pressure and killed its proposed protections for wetlands, a change pushed by homebuilders.



Independent medical and scientific authorities have been removed from key federal advisory groups in favor of industry lobbyists, other interested parties and career contrarians _ for instance, the advisory committee of the National Center for Environmental Health and the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.



The Department of Health and Human Services replaced scientists on a lead-poisoning panel with industry consultants and scrapped recent research. And HHS put a conservative religious activist against the abortion drug RU-486, with little else to recommend him, on a reproductive health panel.



Notoriously, there's global warming, still denied by the administration despite the overwhelming concurrence of international scientific opinion and even, oops, of a study panel appointed by the administration itself.



And the administration has forced the Centers for Disease Control to back away from broad-based sex education, which research has found to be effective, in favor of abstinence-only programs that research has not found to be effective.



Sex education, under new Bush guidelines, is evaluated not by the resulting sexual practices of participants but by their subsequent sexual beliefs, and condoms are scorned, dismissed for disease prevention and contraception even though the data are compelling that they are useful for both.



There is more than one way for a president to lie about sex. This one is actually dangerous.

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Diebrock]

I'm posting this here because it is more about (church) politics than about religion.

A 40 years cover up for continued child abuse.



The Observer

Quote:

---

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse



Expulsion threat in secret documents



Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)



Antony Barnett, public affairs editor

Sunday August 17, 2003

The Observer



The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.



The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.



They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'



The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.



It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.



Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.



Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.



He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'



British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.



He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'



Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.



He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.



Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.



Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.



Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'



A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.



He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'



Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.



Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.



'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.



'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'



Additional research by Jason Rodrigues

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[BytrSuite]

I honestly have no words for how despicable that all is. That's some tradition the Church has there.



indeed

________
"Oh, good! I was hoping to add theft, endangerment and insanity to my list of things I did today."
"Ah! You, too?"
(Stitch laughs delightedly)

[DaddyCatALSO]

And under the Clinton Administration (admittedly not a life or death matter, jst an illustration) the obvious fact that KEnnebunkport Man is the skeleton of somone racially different from current Native Americans was simply ignored when policy decisions about the bones were made.



The simple fact is politicians "don't not" play whatever games necessary with scientific data to justify their pre-determined policies.



This country really needs a 12-party system.

[Gatito Grande]

DCA, I think you're referring to "Kennewick Man" (discovered in Kennewick, Washington), as the Neanderthal "Kennebunkport Man" currently occupies the White House.



While I agree about the need for "12 Parties" (heck, I'd settle for at least 2!), I think this analogy is kind of a stretch. From at least the time of the GOP's "Southern Strategy" (ergo Bible Belt, w/ its denunciation of evolution), the GOP has been preeminently the party of psuedoscience (Remember Ronald Reagan's "trees cause pollution"? James Watt and "Who needs environmental protection, when Jesus is Coming Real Soon!"? Big Tobacco's "Smoking does not cause cancer/is not addictive"?).



There are plenty of Democratic legislators who will vote for industry, and against science, when it suits them (I say this as a Michigan Democrat, where too many Democrats are controlled by the auto industry). But in terms of national platforms and agendas, I believe that there is a qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to taking the best scientific consensus into consideration.



GG Which has only gotten worse as "Kennebunkport Man" is taking commands directly from God Out

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

This country really needs a 12-party system.

---

Come to California! We have at least that many.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[Diebrock]

GG what do you mean by "ergo Bible Belt, w/ its denunciation of evolution"? How can one deny evolution nowadays?

---

I found an older article that fits in with the suppressing science one. (It also fits in a bit with the US government use of intelligence agencies these days, meaning 'we want this result, so now please provide the matching intelligence for this')

Quote:

---

Politics trump credentials: Bush science advisors put under a microscope



The Bush team is going to great lengths to vet members of scientific panels. Credentials, not ideology, should be the focus, critics say.



By Aaron Zitner, Los Angeles Times



WASHINGTON -- When psychologist William R. Miller was asked to join a panel that advises the National Institute on Drug Abuse, he thought he had been selected for his expertise in addiction. Then a Bush administration staff member called with some unexpected questions.



Did Miller support abortion rights? What about the death penalty for drug kingpins? And had he voted for President Bush?



Apparently, Miller said, he did not give enough right answers. He had not, for example, voted for Bush. He was never appointed to the panel.



Researchers are complaining with rising alarm that the Bush administration is using political and ideological screening to try to ensure that its scientific consultants recommend no policies that are out of step with the political agenda of the White House.







Administration officials say they are merely doing what their predecessors have always done: using appointment powers to make sure their viewpoints are well-represented on the government's scientific advisory boards, an important if unglamorous part of the policy-making process. There are more than 250 boards devoted to public health and biomedical research alone, composed of experts from outside the government who help guide policy on gene therapy, bioterrorism, acceptable pollutant levels and other complex matters.



But critics say the Bush administration is going further than its predecessors in considering ideology as well as scientific expertise in forming the panels. A committee that merely gives technical advice on research proposals, as opposed to setting policy, has even been subject to screening, something the critics say was unheard of in previous administrations.



"I don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters," said Donald JFK, past president of Stanford University and editor of Science, the premier U.S. scientific journal. "If you start picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group."



Many of the complaints concern agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services.



On Dec. 10, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a nominee for an advisory board who is known for his support of human cloning in medical research.



Also recently, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson's staff rejected a nominee to a board of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who supports federal rules to curtail repetitive stress injuries in the workplace.



The nominees had been chosen by officials within the FDA and occupational health agency but were then rejected by more senior officials. No specific reasons were given, but Bush opposes human cloning and last year signed a rollback of Clinton-era rules designed to limit repetitive stress injuries.



Those rejections followed incidents this fall in which public health advocates and Democratic lawmakers alleged that the administration had placed people sympathetic to industry on two panels at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One panel advises CDC officials on the prevention of lead poisoning in children. The other makes recommendations on issues ranging from environmental toxins to bioterrorism preparations.



"They're stacking committees to get the advice they know they want to hear, which is a charade," said David Michaels, a professor of public health at George Washington University, who served in the Clinton administration. "Why have an advisory panel if you know what everyone is going to say, and they agree with you?"



Some critics also complain that Thompson has added an ideological cast to the mission of some advisory panels.



To the applause of antiabortion groups, the administration in October directed a panel to study what protections are offered to embryos during medical experiments, using language that equated embryos with "human subjects." Health officials said their intent was to add protections to pregnant women who participate in experiments.



Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, said Bush and Thompson were trying to add balance to the committees.



"This whole idea of a grand conspiracy here or a litmus test — it's just not true," Pierce said. "When you look at the totality of any of these committees, you'll find that they are highly qualified and represent a broad section of the thinking, so that you have a spirited discussion of the issues."



Others said that some of the complaints may reflect a difference in style between Thompson, who as former governor of Wisconsin is familiar with using all the levers of power, and his predecessor in the federal government's top health slot, Donna Shalala.



"This is a four-term governor. This is not an academic, as Dr. Shalala was," said Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "This secretary scrutinizes appointments."



But Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a New York bioethics center, said he saw a pattern in the rejection of nominees to health panels, including his own nomination to the Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee, an FDA panel that considers protein drugs, gene therapy and other matters.



"The fact that they would even bother to blacklist me is ... deeply sad," Murray said. "It portends a distortion of the process of determining what the facts are on a health topic or in environmental policy."



Of all the incidents, several scientists say the most disconcerting involved a panel at the occupational safety agency.



Known as the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, the panel reviews applications for research grants,



ranking them based on their scientific merit. The process is known as peer review.



Dana Loomis, a professor at the University of North Carolina who is chairman of the panel, said Thompson's office gave no reason when it rejected three proposed members several months ago. The nominees had been chosen last year by Loomis, the panel staff and other officials, and they were approved by the then-director of the occupational safety institute.



But the reasons "seem clear enough in at least one case: One of the rejected nominees is a respected expert in ergonomics who has publicly supported a workplace ergonomics standard," Loomis wrote this month in a letter to Sen. Edward M. JFK (D-Mass.). Bush last year repealed such a rule, which was aimed at requiring employers to do more to reduce repetitive stress and related injuries.



That nominee, Laura Purnett, a professor at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, wrote to JFK that she had been subjected to "an ideological litmus test" that presumed she could not be objective in her panel work.



A second nominee, Catherine Heaney, an associate professor of public health at Ohio State University, said she had no clue why she was rejected. But she noted that her most recent research has focused on ergonomics.



In a related incident, a researcher who was nominated to the panel more recently said a member of Thompson's staff called her in an apparent attempt to gauge her views on ergonomics and other issues.



"I took a neutral view" on ergonomics, said Pamela Kidd, a specialist in workplace injury prevention at Arizona State University in Tempe, who is now a member of the panel.



A range of scientists and research advocates said they were particularly disturbed that the administration would ask such questions of nominees to a peer-review panel. These panels do not set policy or make funding decisions, they said, but merely determine whether scientists who want federal funding have designed credible experiments that can truly answer the questions they are studying.



"The goal here is to fund the best science, the best-designed experiments," said Anthony Mazzaschi, an assistant vice president at the Assn. of American Medical Colleges. "To stack peer-review panels based on political preferences rather than scientific competency is doing everyone a disservice."



Loomis, the panel chairman, said the screening "tends to stifle the scientific spirit."



"Regardless of what the intention was, this creates the appearance that review panel members are being politically scrutinized, which is directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent," Loomis said in an interview.



Lawmakers and public health advocates have been vigorously complaining about changes to the two CDC advisory panels.



They challenged several new appointments to the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, saying the new members were too closely aligned with industry interests and might weaken protections for children against lead poisoning. The new



appointees included Dr. William Banner Jr., an Oklahoma physician who, according to critics, has testified that lead is harmful only at levels well beyond the government's current standards.



Another member, Dr. Sergio Piomelli of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York, announced at the committee's first meeting in October that he was nominated to be on the committee by "someone from the lead industry," whose name he could not remember. But Piomelli, a pediatric hematologist, also said he had conducted studies that were criticized by the lead industry.



"Advisory committees are supposed to give the government and the public expert, unbiased advice based on the best possible science," Sen. JFK said. "By stacking these important committees with right-wing ideologues instead of respected scientists, the administration is putting the health and well-being of the American public at risk."



This summer, the administration chose not to reappoint 15 of the 18 members of the National Center for Environmental Health Advisory Committee whose terms had expired. The committee advises the Centers for Disease Control on a range of issues, including bioterrorism preparedness and safe drinking water standards.



One of the new appointees is a former president of a research firm funded by the chemical industry, and another "has made a career countering claims of links between pollutants and cancer," said Sens. JFK and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in a letter to Thompson.



Thomas Burke, an environmental health specialist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who until recently was chairman of the committee, said: "I understand that this is the political process, and the pendulum swings. This is definitely a swing of the pendulum."



Pierce, the Health and Human Services Department's spokesman, said the critics were singling out the few panel members whose views differ from their own, "and then attributing to them some superhuman ability to overwhelm everyone else on the committee."



Pierce also said that the staff member who queried Miller, the addiction researcher, is no longer with the department. "To my knowledge," he added, "'we do not ask those questions."



Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said he received a call early this year asking whether he would serve on the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, which guides funding and policy decisions at a unit of the National Institutes of Health.



Then came the call from someone at Thompson's office.



"The first question he asked me was, 'Are you sympathetic to faith-based initiatives?' I said yes, and he said, 'OK, you're one for one.' "



Then the caller asked Miller about his views on needle exchange programs, the death penalty for drug kingpins and abortion, keeping a running tally of where his views agreed with those of the White House. Finally, the caller asked whether Miller had voted for Bush. When Miller said he had not, the caller asked him to explain.



"You have to admire the audacity," Miller said last week. "It seemed rather clear that the White House wanted to make sure they wouldn't receive any advice inconsistent with their own positions."



"In an ideal world, you'd choose people based on their scientific credentials, their knowledge of the literature," he said. "Maybe that's too ideal a world."



Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times



Found here

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Read it and weep, Diebrock :

Quote:

---

Believe It, or Not



By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF





Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).



So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea.



Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in this column, go to http://www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)



The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll.



My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.



The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.



Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way:



"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."



The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world.



Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).



Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.



I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society.



But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.

---

www.nytimes.com/2003/08/1...%20Kristof



(Must be registered to view)



GG Bad enough that the U.S. is like this, but it is anti-intellectual Bible Belt Christianity which is being spread around the world (check out the "Scarier Religion & HomosexualityThread" to see the fallout of this phenomenon). It's strange: scientific technology is penetrating the most remote (from the "North" ) corners of the world, but the scientific worldview (w/ or w/o theism) isn't. It's very troubling. Out

[Kalita]

Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution? Wow, I'm honestly speechless.



I now feel the pain of every scientifically-minded American. You guys have your work cut out.



Oh, the reason I came: I think the Californians will appreciate this one.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. "

- Margaret Mead

[The Angry Lion]

kalita: I love Tom Tomorrow



no evolution in the US? that means that the human race is inbred................. I can see how in certain places in the Bible Belt that would make a lot of sense

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[maudmac]

Actually, no, it doesn't make any sense at all. I have never met a single person from the Bible Belt who had any interest in having sex with a family member.

---

Walking in space we find the purpose of peace. The beauty of life you can no longer hide.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open. Our eyes are open, our eyes are open wide, wide, wide. -- Walking In Space

[The Angry Lion]

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[maudmac]

Quote:

---

no evolution in the US? that means that the human race is inbred................. I can see how in certain places in the Bible Belt that would make a lot of sense

---

I'm right here in the Bible Belt and I don't see all this inbreeding folks seem to think we have going on down here. It's a really offensive and, unfortunately, very pervasive, stereotype.

---

Walking in space we find the purpose of peace. The beauty of life you can no longer hide.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open. Our eyes are open, our eyes are open wide, wide, wide. -- Walking In Space

[The Angry Lion]

firstly I think your being very PC here, and since Im criticising Fundamentalism not you Im perplexed as to why. Secondly I also said segments of the Belt, I did not say, I took the time to say even tho it was a rant/joke that not everyone fits what was obviously a stereotype directed against fundamentalists who, perhaps you may not know this, are not generally friendly to gays!





sheesh



ps im tired of either being ignored or singled out for abuse, Ive had enuff, im retiring from this thread

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[maudmac]

Hey, Angry Lion. I think I might know what's happened. I think part of it is that we've misunderstood each other. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say "Bible Belt" you're referring to fundamentalists or fundamentalism in general, right?



But the term "Bible Belt" is a reference to the American South, and is used to describe the South because fundamentalism is quite prevalent here.



I understand that you're being critical of fundamentalism and I certainly agree with pretty much any nasty things you could possibly say about that or about anyone who's not friendly to gays.



Let me explain where I was coming from.



Here's the thing, it's not only fundamentalist gay-haters who live in the Bible Belt. Lots and lots of folks who live here are very far from being fundamentalists. I know you said "certain places in the Bible Belt" but you were talking about inbreeding making sense in those certain places. That's what's offensive - the comment about inbreeding, not the criticism of fundamentalists/fundamentalism, or stating the fact that there are places where fundamentalism is common and widely embraced.



Here's my rant now:



It's a sore spot for myself and for a lot of Southerners. For a long time now, we have been vilified and ridiculed in the media and in popular opinion, worldwide. It's often said that we are the only group left it's politically correct to hate and/or make fun of. In my experience, this is definitely true. It's not the stating of facts which reflect how life is here. Facts are facts and if they happen to be unflattering about a particular group of people, that's unfortunately but can't really be argued with. So bring on criticisms of a lot of what's prevalent in the South, such as fundamentalism. Bring on criticism of the South for being a place that responds so favorably to fundamentalist idealogy. But...inbreeding? No. As I said, I have never known anyone who wanted to have sex with a family member.



I would never suggest that the South is progressive. Despite pockets of progressive people, overall, the South lags behind not just the rest of America, but the rest of the industrialized world in virtually every possible way. Anyone saying the South doesn't have more than its share of problems (and that many of those problems originate from within) is a liar.



Nonetheless, inbreeding is not something we have cornered the market on, and it offends Southerners that people have that perception. Incest occurs in every place, every culture on this planet and you'd be hard-pressed to find a part of the world that hasn't known inbreeding. But you singled out (certain segments of) the Bible Belt as a place where inbreeding would make sense and that's what I took exception to. Because it's as offensive to most Southerners to bring up that inbred stereotype as it is to "joke" about the stereotypes of any other group of people. Unfortunately, there is very little pressure on people to stop stereotyping Southerners.



There is an excellent rant here about this issue, if you'd like to read some other opinions about it.



Anyway, that's why I reacted the way I did to your post. I think we were mostly just misunderstanding each other.



As for being ignored or singled out for abuse...A whole lot of posts by all of us who've been posting in this thread are ignored. Many of mine have been. Not every single thing each of us says is going to be interesting to the rest of us or something we necessarily want to discuss further. I don't expect a flurry of posts about Southern stereotypes to result from this post. I'm just saying what I have to say and anyone can take it and run with it or let it drop and move us all on to the next issue. And I really don't think you've been singled out for abuse at all. Certainly no more so than anyone else in this thread. We all have different perspectives on things and we are going to disagree - that's just the way this thread is. I think everyone in here's had someone disagree with them about something or another. That's not abuse, that's just dialogue.



I hope we can reconcile this and you won't feel the need to leave this thread. It gets hot in here sometimes, but I think it's good for us to have it out about these things.

---

Walking in space we find the purpose of peace. The beauty of life you can no longer hide.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open. Our eyes are open, our eyes are open wide, wide, wide. -- Walking In Space

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

For a long time now, we have been vilified and ridiculed in the media and in popular opinion, worldwide.

---

I think you are overestimating Southern importance or impact or whatever in the world. I for one only learned of these stereotypes from Americans. What interests the normal non-political non-American is America's foreign policy and not interior factioning that doesn't make sense to us anyway.



As for these kind of stereotypes (of states or regions), say something back to insult the Yankees. That's how that works. But I sometimes get the feeling that America is too young and thus takes itself still too seriously to just play and have fun with those stereotypes.

East and West-Germans (or Ossis and Wessis) love to insult each other, so do Bavarians and almost everyone else (especially those damn Prussians ). And that are just the big N-S, E-W "conflicts". Then you have of course hundreds of small regional "feuds". Just south of where I live there is for example a small principality called Lippe. Lipper people can't drive, are totally backwards, cheap, have barely managed to industrialize and are practically a developing country. Those poor dears often come across the border to partake in the many wonders that is the great civilised Westphalia, Or maybe they come over as devious WMDs by causing many heart attacks by way of their driving. That was the POV of a Westphalian living near Lippe. Is this stuff true? No, of course not (except for the driving ). But we will continue to say it just as the ones insulted are going to retaliate with their own stereotypes that sometimes go back several hundred years. At the same time we take shots at ourselves as well. It's fun AND keeps centuries old traditions going.

---

Inbreeding. You know, the whole time that I was writing the above I was wondering why your reaction was so extrem (for me) to an inbreeding joke while I wouldn't find it really offensive. (Of course I also loved the story of Inbred, Illinois where everyone but the outsiders had the last name of Witherspoon )

And I think after rereading your comments I finally understand. It's the American sex hang-up rearing its head.

When I think about inbreeding, I think about the result, like our European aristocracy that only nowadays brings in fresh blood from commoners to spice up the old genepool. But generally it is inferred that most of them aren't the brightest people due to inbreeding. But we are talking cousins or even farther removed relatives here, which is totally legal and in no way offensive.

For you, inbreeding jokes are first and foremost jokes about the act of having sex with a family member. Probably a close one that it would be illegal to marry or why else would it be offensive to you?

While I would see them as jokes about sinking intelligence (eg fundamentalists) or even just about certain characteristics that accumulate in the region. And that are jokes that can be easily played with if you as a Southerner don't take yourself too seriously.



I hope I didn't offend. It was in no way my attention. I just thought I would offer my outside perspective.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[xita]

I don't know, I think it depends who is doing it? I certainly don't mind gay jokes from a gay person, but it gets annoying if someone who doesn't know my life makes jokes about it because it is unclear as to whether that person knows the actual truth of things or actually does think the joke is the truth.



Do you like that a lot of people outside Germany think germans are all nazis? I mean maybe you do, maybe you can laugh it off.



It isn't funny not because it is a joke about sex, you assume a lot about what certain americans have hang ups about. It is not a funny joke if you happen to live in the southern states and people including yourself think that everyone there is less intelligent because of a geographical area. I really don't think that's hard to understand.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."

-Willie Wonka

[DaddyCatALSO]

Gatito Grande; It's been a while since I read about that so thanks for straightening out my name confusion.

Won't try ot defend Republicans on science issues in general. However Watt's cooment on "how many generations" has been taken out of context; it was actually in one of his few speeches about why it *is* ncessary to preserve forested areas, since we may need them for a long time.

As to my political idol Mr. Reagan I don't think he was bright enough to actually *have* a theory as to where pollution comes from. Like most of his quotes it was a half-remmebered story. Triiva writers (like in the comic strip version of "Ripley's Believe It or Not") pointed out that the trees in a typical patch of froest put out a lot of chemicals which are consdiered hazardous commercially. For example, a workplace with such a high level of airborne chemicals would be shut down. (the fact that these chemicals ahve been there for millions of years and are aprt of a balanced process should escape nobody.) Once again Ronnie proved how you can say soemthing totally ridiculous and still be factually correct.

As to the Virgin Birth, it's a plain teaching of Christianity, rgeardless of which book of the New Testament it appears in or doesn't. It isn't necessarily essential but it's there and if Paul didn't believe in it obviously Luke did and that's enough for me. As to evolution, that's a matter for scientific evidence and there's plenty of that. The subjects involve different concepts which perhaps are more likely to be together in certain eprsons but are not logically linked.

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

I don't know, I think it depends who is doing it? I certainly don't mind gay jokes from a gay person

---

That's why I used the examples I did, a German using stereotypes about other Germans, just as I assumed that Southern stereotypes were used by other Americans. Because others would more likely target America as a whole.

Quote:

---

Do you like that a lot of people outside Germany think germans are all nazis? I mean maybe you do, maybe you can laugh it off.

---

Do I like it? Of course not. Do I laugh about it? No. Does it bother me? Not really, as long as it's not foreign governments. It's just a fact of German life that you grow up with and learn to live with. I even have to say that on a general level I can understand it. But it doesn't touch me. I know I'm no Nazi, I know my family and friends are no Nazis, what do I care what someone in say England says. I'm not insulted if that is what you mean as long as it's not a personal attack against me.

Quote:

---

you assume a lot about what certain americans have hang ups about.

---

Well, it's a stereotype. This time for the entire US. I assume that in general because of the great religiousness, morality and the Puritan tendencies that run through America of which we have talked about in this forum and elsewhere, and I assumed that specifically in this context because of maudmac taking offence at what she interpreted as implied "interest in having sex with a family member." Though I don't believe she was personally targeted.

Quote:

---

It is not a funny joke if you happen to live in the southern states and people including yourself think that everyone there is less intelligent because of a geographical area.

---

I hope you meant yourself as in me and not as in the people living there. Because else it would be a case of low self-esteem.

Of course I don't think that. That would be pretty stupid. It's just a stereotype. That's what I said in my previous post as well. And I think it's a stereotype made by Americans against Americans who live in another part of the same country. And right here I don't understand the whole problem because I'm pretty sure your other regions have stereotypes attached to them as well.

It was my understanding that people in the south are incredibly proud to be, well, Southern. I always thought that such pride made it very easy to let stuff roll off of you (because it makes you secure in yourself) even if you aren't able to take it with humour. Guess not.

At the same time I know that in Germany I never have the feeling that anybody is so stupid as to believes those stereotypes we throw around and I probably assumed this certainty would exist in the US as well. If it doesn't then this could be the cause of our totally different POV.



After rereading my last post I admit that the word joke was a poor word choice but I still haven't found an other nuanced English word that would express more accurately what I mean. It's just that only stereotype doesn't fit and shot or crack doesn't fit and teasing doesn't fit...

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution? Wow, I'm honestly speechless.



I now feel the pain of every scientifically-minded American. You guys have your work cut out.

---

Okay, now I'm going to come at you all from a completely different direction.



I object to the notion of asking whether or not a person "believes in" evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory. It's supposed to be established by fact. You don't see anyone asking people if they "believe in" gravity or photosynthesis or oxidation. Scientific theories are established based on the interpretation of data, and are confirmed through controlled observations and experiments.



But evolution is different. For one thing, no one has yet developed a controlled laboratory experiment that would prove it. For another thing, the public at large has come to see it as a weapon for refuting the existence of God. But that's not what it's for. Charles Darwin was not an atheist. Like many scientists of his day, he was trying to explain God's methods of creating the universe, not to disprove God's existence. His work was an account of his observations and a proposed explanation for what he had seen. But since Darwin's time, the battle lines have been drawn. Conservative Christians tried to banish Darwin out of fear, and their attempts prompted the secular community to rally behind evolution even more. And now it's become so political and so wrapped up in things that have nothing to do with legitimate scientific inquiry that the whole field of study has become tainted.



Personally, I have problems with the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective. There are still several questions out there that I don't think science has been able to explain. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in another couple of centuries science came up with another explanation for how species develop and change, and the people in that future time then laughed about us in the same way that we laugh about people who thought the sun went around the Earth.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[drlloyd11]

ok, this is fun



story.news.yahoo.com/news...fevolution





SUMMARY: While conservative groups dismiss homosexuality as "unnatural," a leading zoologist has said gay people could be seen as the "pinnacle of evolution."







At a time when religious and conservative right-wing groups are attempting to dismiss homosexuality as "unnatural," a leading zoologist has said gay people could be seen as the "pinnacle of evolution."





Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Clive Bromhall said that humankind's evolution has resulted in our present state of "infantilism," in which we break the primate mold by being playful, creative and childlike right into adulthood.





"From men's obsession with swollen breasts to our constant search for a pseudoparental God, everything about the human species is infantile," Bromhall said in a lecture.





"Like baby chimps, we have soft, downy bodies, flat faces and large, rounded heads. Like them, we too want to be kissed, cuddled and stroked; we remain playful, compliant and comparatively mild-mannered for the whole of our lives," he added.





Bromhall claims that infantilism is rejected by straight people as they age -- and that by remaining in same-sex relationships, gay men and women are actually displaying superiority over their peers.





"We've known for years that homosexuality is linked to a playful, creative character," he said.





"Homosexuals excel as artists, thespians and other playful, mimetic professions. Being playful is at the heart of being human. It's something that should be celebrated. You could say that homosexuals are at the pinnacle of human evolution."





Bromhall was speaking to promote his new book "The Eternal Child" at the festival.

[Caoilin]

Quote:

---

For one thing, no one has yet developed a controlled laboratory experiment that would prove it.

---

But most of science is this way. The "black box" that is most physicical/chemical/biological processes is what scientists build models around. Most scientists know that they will never actually see how these things work - and acknowledge that a better model may be discovered some day. This neither detracts nor discards evolutionary theory as it stands today.



To me, creationism is not a viable "theory" to support the evidence found by the scientific community. And I don't really understand why this is often an issue for the average Christian/Bible believer. How can someone who believes Genesis also believe in evolution? Well, how do they know how long God's day is?



edited for spelling and such

Edited by: Caoilin at: 8/20/03 3:39 pm

[BBOvenGuy]

Oh, when I say I have problems with the theory of evolution, I'm not advocating creationism. I simply think that the issue needs to go on being studied instead of embracing Darwin as infallible truth. That's the same mistake the creationists have made - they're so obsessed with the idea of literal biblical inerrancy that it renders them unable to deal with what's right in front of them.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[Gatito Grande]

DCA, I have to admit that I'm having trouble telling whether you're being sarcastic or not (I'm dim that way, as my ex was fond of telling everybody).



"As to my political idol Mr. Reagan": that's sarcasm, right? Or are you making a point about how someone can waffle on the knife-edge between brain-dead incompetence and heartless malevolence, yet still be a Teflon-coated *political* genius?

Quote:

---

As to the Virgin Birth, it's a plain teaching of Christianity, rgeardless of which book of the New Testament it appears in or doesn't.

---

Plain teaching? Nope, I don't think there is any such animal under the heavens. Every person's subjective viewpoint only brings w/ it what is "plain" to the individual, whether it's the "Virgin Birth" or the "Biblical condemnation of homosexuality" (and if I sound embittered from voiciferously denying and deconstructing the latter recently, you would be correct ).

Quote:

---

It isn't necessarily essential but it's there and if Paul didn't believe in it obviously Luke did and that's enough for me.

---

Luke, or "Luke" (i.e. the redactors and censors of "The Gospel of Luke," followed by the redactors and censors of the New Testament canon)? Beyond the construction of the Gospels w/ their frequent "this was done to fulfill _____" formulas, w/ the "Virgin Birth," we're dealing w/ an (at least possible) mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew ("young female") to the Greek parthenos ("sexually-chaste female"), which was then interpolated into Matthew 1:23.



In other words, DaddyCat, I'm questioning whether it's even really there, much less whether it's essential. FWIW, I happen to believe that the Virgin Birth happened, because---accepting as I do that the Divine exists beyond from the natural physical order---I have no compelling reason not to (But that compelling reason still could emerge for me).



GG Yikes! Definitely wandered into "Scary Religion Thread" territory, eh? Out

[yana]

BBOvenGuy said:

Quote:

---

Oh, when I say I have problems with the theory of evolution, I'm not advocating creationism. I simply think that the issue needs to go on being studied instead of embracing Darwin as infallible truth. That's the same mistake the creationists have made - they're so obsessed with the idea of literal biblical inerrancy that it renders them unable to deal with what's right in front of them.

---

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't see the parallel. I admit I don't know much about creationism, but they seem kind of... firm about it. To them, it's fact.



The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has changed and been expanded quite a bit since Darwin first mentioned it. There are currently at least two major (and opposing) ideas on macroevolution, so modern scientists are by far not just taking century old ideas as fact.



However, most, if not all, actual mechanisms of natural selection that Darwin introduced have been pretty well supported both experimentally and from observing natural phenomena.



I guess I'm not clear on why you think people take Darwin's ideas to be infallible truth.



Yana

"We are one, the gurus say. Aye -- I might agree -- but one what?" -- Edward Abbey

[Kalita]

On Darwin - I think we have to look at the scientific community's stance and see what needs to be considered.



The Origin of Species contains two seminal ideas - the concept of evolution, that species come along from previous species and multiple groupings of species have common origins; and the conjecture of natural selection, that the species which survive today are the fittest and most adaptable of their kind, which have lived longer and healthier than other species which evolved in parallel, and that this process goes back to the origins of life.



I, for one, consider evolution (the first of those concepts) to be unalterable fact. There is too much in the fossil record, and indeed in almost everything in the natural world, to really make a solid scientific argument against it. That's my view.



As for natural selection, it's a very good theory and has a lot of support and evidence behind it - but it's not perfect. There certainly are many possible ways of explaining how evolution happens, and Darwin happened to suggest the most famous of those in the same book in which he described evolution.



The problem is that Darwin's two ideas often get interpreted as one. I'm sure there would still be many arguments around the issue even if they were more clearly delineated, but I do want to clear the (very muddy) waters if I can.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. "

- Margaret Mead

[darkmagicwillow]

As Kalita points out, the term evolution is used to refer to both the observed facts of evolution and the theory of natural selection (which changed from edition to edition of Origin of Species and which has continued to change today as Yana indicates).



Biologists consider evolution to be a fact. We see it in action today from the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria to the emergence of new species. The historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming, both from DNA studies and from fossils.



There are questions about the mechanisms through which evolution occurs. Darwin actually proposed three of them in his Origin of Species, including both natural and sexual selection along with the disproved theory of Lamarckian acquired characteristics. This area is where theories of evolution come in, and as I mentioned above, there has been considerable change in this area since Darwin's time. Biologists do not view Darwin as infallible.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 8/23/03 4:53 pm

[BBOvenGuy]

Quote:

---

Biologists do not view Darwin as infallible.

---

True. And most authorities on Christianity don't view the Bible as "infallible," or at least not in the sense that would claim that the book of Genesis is a scientific treatise.



But when you get out into the public arena, the nuances of both Darwin and the Bible get lost in an emotional struggle. It's in this medium that you get people passionately trying to insist that Genesis is absolutely 100% literally true - and I think you also get people arguring just as passionately that Darwin is absolutely 100% literally true.



There are plenty of people out there who have no trouble with the coexistence of evolutionary scientific inquiry and the Christian faith. It's just that you never hear about them because they're drowned out by all the other people screaming.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Scientific theories are established based on the interpretation of data, and are confirmed through controlled observations and experiments.



But evolution is different. For one thing, no one has yet developed a controlled laboratory experiment that would prove it.

---

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I mean evolution isn't a theory anymore. We all started out as a few strands of DNA that evolved over billions of years into what we are today. That's what evolution means to me. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean the creation of life itself, or the question of why those strands of DNA mutated into something else in the first place then that is another matter. How did those bits of chemicals become alive? No one has been able to duplicate that moment in time. So there is no proof of how it happened, just theories, lots of them. Was it a lightning strike, did life hitch a ride on a meteorite, or was it an act of god? I don't know, nothing has been proven in a controlled experiment, not the random chemical chain reaction nor the hand of god.



Anyway, I think I understand why some religious people don't want to believe in evolution. It threatens their entire belief system. If they take a teeny tiny sentence from a big book literally and expand on it to use it to justify denying a group of people the same rights they have, then evolution poses a bit of a problem. It proves the world was not created in 7 days, so if you can't take that literally then who knows what else you can't? If you think about it, it might become a bit hard to believe that man was created in the image of god, that we are the end all, be all of creation, when in fact we evolved by chance over a period of a couple of billion years. Why would man be the image of god and not one of the millions of other species that inhabit this world with us? Why us? Not because we are the most intelligent surely, because that can be debated as well. So just maybe homosexuality isn't an abomination either, seeing as it naturally occurs among other species as well. I can imagine how certain scientific facts can be threatening to some people's faith.



Eh, I am not trying to undermine or question religion as a whole, far from it, I have my own beliefs that aren't scientific, but my beliefs and ideas have changed over the years due to new scientific discoveries. As it is, I don't want to be just a scientifically explained bundle of DNA that can think about itself before disappearing into nothing. So it has sometimes been tempting to dismiss what has been proven because it interfered with some of my beliefs, but ultimately I accepted and adapted. People can believe what they want. It only becomes a problem when they try to impose their beliefs on others because what they believe is fact to them and must therefore be fact for everyone. And that is what has happened. Homosexuality is evil and unnatural, gays must not be allowed to marry, end of story and just ignore everything that proves that those assumptions may not be completely accurate or justified. Bleh.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

Edited by: DrG at: 8/24/03 3:34 am

[Ben Varkentine]

From Eric Alterman's blog (link below)



"From Today’s Paper’s: “The NYT notes inside that the administration has cut off funding to a small but well-regarded international AIDS program after charging that it was involved with groups that supported forced abortions. While State Department officials “acknowledge that they have no evidence that the group was involved in such practices, they point out that the group worked with a U.N. group, which also doesn’t support forced abortions, but did at one point with work the Chinese gov’t, which does.” Again, what can one say? They prefer to see people die unnecessarily and can’t even substantiate the charges they are making? The mind recoils in horror; the heart sinks in shame."



www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?cp1=1

Ben



"Somewhere, inside something, there is a rush of greatness

Who knows what stands in front of our lives...

Silence tells me secretly everything."-Flesh Failures