The Republican War on Science

[Reincarnated]

The Republican War on Science: Part 1

05, May 2007

Since the year 2000, when George W. Bush and fellow Republicans took over Washington in one of the most closest and controversial elections in U.S. history, they have waged another kind of war. The number of attempts to cast doubt and undermine the scientific community by the Bush administration is disturbing and should not go without concern. Their policy of unrealistic ideology is reversing our progress as a leading nation and diminishing the image of what America stands for.

In 2003, the park superintendent for the Grand Canyon tried blocking the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail in the parks bookstore. The book claimed the canyon was created on a biblical time scale by Noah’s flood rather than geologic forces. Law and park policies make it clear that the parks bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries and must contain only the highest quality science. Records show that in 2003, Grand Canyon officials have rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement. Due to much controversy, only one book was approved that year and it was Grand Canyon: A Different View. That wasn’t the end of it though. Bush appointees also gave orders to public employees to suspend their belief in geology and barred them from discussing the geologic age of the Grand Canyon with visitors. These kinds of actions set my alarm off to the unhealthy agendas the Republican Party carries and have me worried about the direction our country is heading in.

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to regulate C02 emissions to combat global warming. Although once in office, his perspective on the issue changed dramatically. He refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which put caps on greenhouse gas emissions stating that it would “wreck†our economy. "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said in a Danish television interview. Bush and the GOP now aggressively defend their stance on global warming, claiming there is no evidence linking human activity to climate change. Apparently the pocketbooks of energy corporations are more important than future of the planet. It makes you wonder who is really running our country.

In December of 2006, memos circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service which stated biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic could not discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so. Since this new act, NASA has been forced to cancel many journalists’ interviews with climate scientists and also discouraged news releases on global warming. This has put a big dent in the freedom of scientists to freely discuss climate change. They aren’t allowed to speak of certain topics nor say specific words and must now get a designated spokesperson if they plan on discussing the issue in the future. One must wonder, why?

It would only be a matter of time before the scientific community stood up to the suppression of their findings. In January of this year, scientists and advocacy groups publicly accused the Bush administration of doctoring scientists’ reports. They described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming in reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid “political inconvenienceâ€. The Union of Concerned Scientists stated in a report that pressure was extended against the use of words such as “climate change†and “global warmingâ€. They included a survey of 1,600 government scientists in which 46% admitted they received warnings against using terms such as “global warming†in reports or speeches. Forty-three percent said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Thirty-eight percent said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate change was stripped away from websites and reports. Much of the testimony was focused on Mr. Cooney, a former lobbyist for the petroleum industry put in charge of the Council on Environmental Quality who now works for Exxon Mobil. In one instance he personally edited out a key section of an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress on the dangers of human influence climate change. Complaints about the Bush administrations censorship on research have been surfacing for years.

- Reincarnated

Edited May 6, 2007 by Reincarnated

[Harte]

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to regulate C02 emissions to combat global warming. Although once in office, his perspective on the issue changed dramatically. He refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which put caps on greenhouse gas emissions stating that it would “wreck†our economy. "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said in a Danish television interview. Bush and the GOP now aggressively defend their stance on global warming, claiming there is no evidence linking human activity to climate change. Apparently the pocketbooks of energy corporations are more important than future of the planet. It makes you wonder who is really running our country.

(my emphasis.)

I too deplore the politicization of science, but to call it the "Republican War on Science" seems a bit disingenuous to me. Both parties manipulate scientific research toward their own ends. I believe that your phrasing it in this way exposes your political agenda.

Also, your blaming Bush for the failure of Kyoto is ridiculous. Clinton made a big fanfare out of agreeing to this "treaty" but never even submitted it to the Senate. By the way, it is the Senate's job to "ratify the Kyoto Protocol," and not the President's.

Why did Clinton not submit the treaty to the Senate? His people privately polled Senators and found the treaty, which is basically just a self-inflicted gunshot in the head for Western Countries, would fail by a vote of 99 to 1! You gonna blame Bush for that?

I don't care much for Bush myself, but I thought that his taking Kyoto off the table, as well as the pullout from the ABM treaty (a treaty we had with a country that no longer exists, I should add) showed political courage. For a politician that's fairly rare. He really had nothing to gain in either case, and he spent political capital and took a lot of (unjustified and self-righteous) heat for making both decisions.

Of course, it's becoming more and more clear that the current administration just doesn't want to believe in Global Climate Change. Though I fail to see how that could seriously impact the oil companies.

Harte

Edited May 5, 2007 by Harte

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

I am conservative, but I am all for stem cell research. I think it should be a top priority.

[Lord Umbarger]

I am conservative, but I am all for stem cell research.

Same here. Peopel are going to have abortions, rather we like it or not. Why let that potential cure go to waste? Maybe in a hundred years, we'll have a way to clone new organs from peoples hair or something but, for now, stem cells are the only best option for millions of sufferers.

I understand the ethical debate over it though. It IS a "living potential" in and of itself. On the other hand, whoam I to say that I know better for some rape victim on the other side of the country? And since that living mass is going to go in a biowaste bag, why not use it for something good? Why not try to squeeze knowledge and life from the jaws of death?

[keithisco]

(my emphasis.)

I too deplore the politicization of science, but to call it the "Republican War on Science" seems a bit disingenuous to me. Both parties manipulate scientific research toward their own ends. I believe that your phrasing it in this way exposes your political agenda.

Also, your blaming Bush for the failure of Kyoto is ridiculous. Clinton made a big fanfare out of agreeing to this "treaty" but never even submitted it to the Senate. By the way, it is the Senate's job to "ratify the Kyoto Protocol," and not the President's.

Why did Clinton not submit the treaty to the Senate? His people privately polled Senators and found the treaty, which is basically just a self-inflicted gunshot in the head for Western Countries, would fail by a vote of 99 to 1! You gonna blame Bush for that?

I don't care much for Bush myself, but I thought that his taking Kyoto off the table, as well as the pullout from the ABM treaty (a treaty we had with a country that no longer exists, I should add) showed political courage. For a politician that's fairly rare. He really had nothing to gain in either case, and he spent political capital and took a lot of (unjustified and self-righteous) heat for making both decisions.

Of course, it's becoming more and more clear that the current administration just doesn't want to believe in Global Climate Change. Though I fail to see how that could seriously impact the oil companies.

Harte

Self-inflicted gunshot to the head?? How naive can you be? If the Kyoto agreement was fully implemented, and the agreement to buy Carbon Emissions credits renounced. then all of us on Planet Earth would know that there was a chance for our grandchildren.The US administration, and I am careful NOT to say the US people, do not want seriously to look at alternative fuels.... Why? because the big Oil corporations find it cheaper to continue extracting carbon fuels from the ground, than to devote billions of dollars to finding a sustainable source of energy that will not impact on the climate. They have the money, why do they not do it? As for Bush? This man does not have courage, you need an IQ of at least 90 to have "courage"!

[Reincarnated]

The reason why I brought up the fact that Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is because before he was elected, he pledged to lower emissions and make our country greener. He did the complete opposite and is a bold faced liar. Instead he keeps increasing tax breaks for his oil buddies in Texas. Bush is being picked on because he truly is the worst president in US history and deserves that and a lot worse. Why do people still defend this disgusting excuse for a human being? You are just as bad as him.

[Jim88]

The grand canyon thing I don't see the big deal. One theory is as good as any other. All anybody can do is theorize how the grand canyon formed. So what's wrong with a book offering an alternative explanation?

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to regulate C02 emissions to combat global warming. Although once in office, his perspective on the issue changed dramatically. He refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which put caps on greenhouse gas emissions stating that it would “wreck†our economy. "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem," Bush said in a Danish television interview. Bush and the GOP now aggressively defend their stance on global warming, claiming there is no evidence linking human activity to climate change. Apparently the pocketbooks of energy corporations are more important than future of the planet. It makes you wonder who is really running our country.

I agree with you on this one. The Bush administration hasn't done a thing to combat global warming. They're in denial. Scientists can show the concentrations of green house gases have gone way up during the industrial revolution. That's as conclusive as your going to get that human activity is the cause of global warming. I don't know how anybody could come up with more conclusive evidence than that. I think government ought to do something to try and reduce emissions. We're not going to stop global warming by having everybody driving around in SUVs. I don't know much about the Kyoto treaty, so I don't know how much that would have done to stop global warming. We have an economy based on the burning of fossil fuels, so if it capped emissions too much it would hurt the economy. We really need to move away from burning fossil fuels.

How much do you think we need to reduce emissions to stop global warming? According to a book I read about it we need to reduce them by 80%. As far as I know that isn't possible with present day technology. You're not going to get that great of a reduction simply by improving efficiency. The person who wrote the book thought hydrogen fuel cells were the answer. The problem with that is it takes energy to produce the hydrogen. To reduce emissions by 80% somebody would have to find a clean and economical alternative to burning fossil fuels. Nobody has found one yet. Pouring more money into research might help. It might not.

[Blizno]

"The grand canyon thing I don't see the big deal. One theory is as good as any other. All anybody can do is theorize how the grand canyon formed. So what's wrong with a book offering an alternative explanation?"

One theory is NOT as good as any other.

The Grand Canyon's formation is well known from extensive geologic research. The evidence can only lead to the canyon being millions of years old. It is not possible for the canyon to have been formed as it is now in a few weeks by a flood, no matter how catastrophic.

The view being forced upon us by the religious fanatics in power is not a theory. It is a myth. It comes from an ancient book written by farmers and shepherds who heard the myth from tales passed down from even earlier religions.

"Both parties manipulate scientific research toward their own ends."

Perhaps, but the Republicans have gone far, far beyond any manipulation ever performed before. The Republican attack is orders of magnitude worse than any that came before. This is the first time US government has systematically attacked reasoned thought for the purpose of training Americans to stop thinking and blindly obey the fundamentalist Christian priesthood the Religious Right wants to install to replace elected government. This is a brand new thing and it is terribly dangerous.

"Though I fail to see how that could seriously impact the oil companies."

This is a joke, right? You can't see how reduction of demand for fossil fuels could affect oil companies? Really?

Edited May 22, 2007 by blizno

[Harte]

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to regulate C02 emissions to combat global warming. Although once in office, his perspective on the issue changed dramatically.

As I recall it, this "promise" was retracted less than a week after it was made. Before the election, IOW. But your source deliberately tries to make it seem that Bush somehow relied on this promise to get him elected, then reneged. You know, like Clinton did with his "Middle Class Tax Cut" that won him his first term, which he immediately proceeded to trash (once in office) because "...we had no idea how bad the deficit was!"

Self-inflicted gunshot to the head?? How naive can you be? If the Kyoto agreement was fully implemented, and the agreement to buy Carbon Emissions credits renounced. then all of us on Planet Earth would know that there was a chance for our grandchildren.

Me naive!

You obviously don't know much about Kyoto.

This accord exempts countries like China and India from ever having to comply with any restraints. Are you aware that most of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere due to Man's intrerference comes from underground coal seam fires in China?

The Kyoto accord would result in a depression for the countries hamstrung by it to the benefit of those that never would be. China's economy has been growing at a pace of about 25% per year for over a decade now. Think about what that means. India is purchasing oil at a rate similar to most western nations already.

Of all the signatory nations that ratified the accord, only one is on track right now to meet the emission standard applicaple at present - the U.K.

The US administration, and I am careful NOT to say the US people, do not want seriously to look at alternative fuels.... Why? because the big Oil corporations find it cheaper to continue extracting carbon fuels from the ground, than to devote billions of dollars to finding a sustainable source of energy that will not impact on the climate. They have the money, why do they not do it?

Absurd. Exactly what sort of "alternative fules" are you talking about? Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy carrier. It must be extracted using methods that result in a greater carbon footprint than gasoline engines do.

Ethanol puts out as much CO2 as any petroleum product.

We'll have to go to nuclear power to make any dent at all, and people such as yourself crying about wanting "a chance for our grandchildren" are the ones responsible for us being in the antinuclear plight we're in right now.

As for Bush? This man does not have courage, you need an IQ of at least 90 to have "courage"!

Call it what you want. Bush had nothjing at all to gain by taking Kyoto off the table, similarly with the ABM treaty. That's just the absolute truth. And there is obviously no question that he spent political capital and caught plenty of heat for doing both, is there? This is what is called "courage" in politics. Whether you want to admit it or not.

"Though I fail to see how that could seriously impact the oil companies."

This is a joke, right? You can't see how reduction of demand for fossil fuels could affect oil companies? Really?

In what way would the Kyoto Protocol reduce demand for fossil fuels? I'd be very interested to hear why you think this.

Harte

[Jim88]

One theory is NOT as good as any other.

The Grand Canyon's formation is well known from extensive geologic research. The evidence can only lead to the canyon being millions of years old. It is not possible for the canyon to have been formed as it is now in a few weeks by a flood, no matter how catastrophic.

That's all based on projections and estimates. They can't prove the age of the grand canyon. They can't make any observations to confirm their projections. The only way you could know how the grand canyon formed is if you saw it form. They can't prove anything about things that happened in the past. They can't make any observations to do that.

I don't see what's wrong with offering an alternative explanation to what scientists are saying.

The view being forced upon us by the religious fanatics in power is not a theory. It is a myth. It comes from an ancient book written by farmers and shepherds who heard the myth from tales passed down from even earlier religions.

That's your opinion. I believe the story of the flood of Noah is a myth also.

"Both parties manipulate scientific research toward their own ends."

True

Edited May 22, 2007 by Jim88

[Blizno]

"In what way would the Kyoto Protocol reduce demand for fossil fuels? I'd be very interested to hear why you think this."

A treaty designed to greatly reduce the amount of CO2 most countries (you are correct to complain that China and India were exempted from the treaty) put into the air? Most of the human-caused CO2 comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas. Mandating a significant reduction in CO2 production requires burning much less fossil fuel. Why is this mysterious to you?

[Harte]

Most of the human-caused CO2 comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas. Mandating a significant reduction in CO2 production requires burning much less fossil fuel. Why is this mysterious to you?

Actually, that's not even close to true.

Did increasing the CAFE standards on automobiles in the US cause a drop in demand for fossil fuels? No, the opposite occurred.

Mandating a reduction of CO2 requires removing the CO2 from exhausts, automobile or industrial. It does nothing for reducing consumption, as fossil fuels will for at least another century be the cheapest way to get energy for these purposes.

Now, if you could argue that a reduction in energy consumption would result from the Kyoto accords, then maybe you'd have a point about fossil fuels, though I cannot see how we'd consume less energy in any conceivable case.

No, but even if you were right, the oil companies would still happily sell to India and China and the developing African (and other exempt) nations and their consumption would very soon surpass that of the Western World.

Lastly, let's not forget that oil company profits were stagnant for a decade, even though no restraints were even being contemplated on useages, and at the same time that the SUV boom was occuring in the USA.

The thing is, these sorts of things just aren't zero-sum, and they are far more complicated than one would tend to think at first glance.

Harte

[Blizno]

"That's all based on projections and estimates. They can't prove the age of the grand canyon. They can't make any observations to confirm their projections. The only way you could know how the grand canyon formed is if you saw it form. They can't prove anything about things that happened in the past. They can't make any observations to do that."

Of course they can. Geologists have taken samples from all over the Grand Canyon and have a very good idea what kinds of rock it was cut from. The rates of erosion of those types of rock have been measured...by eroding samples under controlled conditions...and the time required to erode the canyon is not hard to estimate. Furthermore, there are obvious erosion patterns showing that the flow of the Colorado River has been huge at times and slow at other times. There's far too much evidence showing long, slow erosion to ignore. It is impossible for the Grand Canyon to have been eroded in weeks or less.

"I don't see what's wrong with offering an alternative explanation to what scientists are saying."

Where does that end? Do you favor offering an alternative explanation to the earth circling the sun instead of the other way around? There are still people who believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Should we offer their point of view as if it has any validity? What about the "hollow earth" people? Should we offer their explanation for what's inside our planet? The harm of portraying these "alternative" explanations alongside real explanations is that lots of people start to believe in fairy tales instead of studying observed, measured reality.

That's your opinion.

No, it's not just my opinion. I've heard many, many fundies say with their mouths that they intend to take USA away from the citizens and put a fundy priesthood in power instead. USA has been in a struggle from its beginning between the separation-of-church-and-state people and the church-IS-the-state people. The country has seldom if ever been this close to being taking over by a priesthood.

Edited May 22, 2007 by blizno

[Blizno]

"Actually, that's not even close to true.

Did increasing the CAFE standards on automobiles in the US cause a drop in demand for fossil fuels? No, the opposite occurred."

SUVs are classified as "light trucks" and weren't regulated by CAFE standards until recently. After the Chevy Blazer came out, SUV sales skyrocketed. The CAFE standards were sidestepped by the auto industry hyping SUVs over cars. The auto industries also reap much higher profits from SUVs (higher in price but not much more expensive to make) than cars, so the auto industries have filled the roads with SUVs by controlling consumers through advertising.

In fact, I see a nice drop in US energy consumption (in all sectors, not just transportation) during the 70s and early 80s (about when the first energy crunch happened):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/images/figure3.jpg

That obviously has little to do with CAFE standards since it affects all sectors, but it shows that USA can get by with less energy if it chooses to. I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter asking us to turn off lights we're not using, drive less, turn down the thermostat during the winter, etc. We did. The dip in the graph is the result. We can do it again. We don't have to squander our world.

"Mandating a reduction of CO2 requires removing the CO2 from exhausts, automobile or industrial. It does nothing for reducing consumption, as fossil fuels will for at least another century be the cheapest way to get energy for these purposes."

Not true. Removing CO2 from power plant exhausts is not yet feasible. It's too expensive. Nobody has even suggested capturing CO2 from motor vehicles. Even if CO2 could be removed from power plant exhausts, we don't know what to do with it. The options of injecting CO2 into exhausted oil fields or into the deep ocean haven't been shown to be feasible. Mandating a reduction of CO2 can ONLY mean reducing consumption of fossil fuels.

I agree that fossil fuels are the cheapest sources of energy and will be so for many years to come. That ignores the total cost of using fossil fuels though, which includes environmental degradation caused by their harvesting and use. The true cost of fossil fuels is much, much higher than we've yet had to pay.

"No, but even if you were right, the oil companies would still happily sell to India and China and the developing African (and other exempt) nations and their consumption would very soon surpass that of the Western World."

I agree completely with you. The exemption for "developing nations" in the Kyoto accord wrongly included China and India. Those two countries house the largest national populations (numbers of consumers) in the world. USA is still the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels but China will pass USA before long, with India passing USA a few years after that. India and China MUST be included in CO2 reduction determinations. As for truly poor nations, I would like to know how much CO2 is produced by the poorer nations in Africa, Asia and South America. If they produce little CO2, I say let them get away with it until they grow large enough to be significant producers, then start requiring them to control their emissions.

"Lastly, let's not forget that oil company profits were stagnant for a decade, even though no restraints were even being contemplated on useages, and at the same time that the SUV boom was occuring in the USA."

There was a supply glut during those years. That was because OPEC nations couldn't agree on how much they would restrict the flow of oil. Yes, demand went way up, but supply also went way up.

By the way, here's a story that oil production for the entire planet may have to start declining in a year or so:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070417_oil_peak.html

Even if oil production starts to slow down, there's far more coal in the ground than oil. Coal is, unfortunately, a worse greenhouse gas producer since coal puts out significantly more CO2 per unit of energy produced than does oil. My point is that even if oil starts phasing itself out, there's still plenty of fossil fuel in the ground and we have to deal with the CO2 issue long before we run out of coal and natural gas.

"The thing is, these sorts of things just aren't zero-sum, and they are far more complicated than one would tend to think at first glance."

Not really. We can see lots of patterns in global production and consumption over many years, as well as global weather patterns over many years. What happens year-to-year may be hard to understand or predict, but over decades, clear patterns emerge.

[+joc]

there isn't a 'republican war on Science' just a Leftist war on Bush.

[Lt_Ripley]

Same here. Peopel are going to have abortions, rather we like it or not. Why let that potential cure go to waste? Maybe in a hundred years, we'll have a way to clone new organs from peoples hair or something but, for now, stem cells are the only best option for millions of sufferers.

I understand the ethical debate over it though. It IS a "living potential" in and of itself. On the other hand, whoam I to say that I know better for some rape victim on the other side of the country? And since that living mass is going to go in a biowaste bag, why not use it for something good? Why not try to squeeze knowledge and life from the jaws of death?

stem cells would also come from excess eggs that have been fertilized and not used to impregnate a woman in utero. usually they are just wasted .

Edited May 22, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Blizno]

there isn't a 'republican war on Science' just a Leftist war on Bush.

No. Bush and his handlers are waging a real and terrible war against reason. They want to replace thought with obedience to their personal, private interpretation of an ancient book.

[Lt_Ripley]

there isn't a 'republican war on Science' just a Leftist war on Bush.

Bush’s 2007 budget proposed cutting funding for the National Cancer Institute by $40 million.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/18/bush-cancer/

SOTU: Bush Has Cut Science Education Funding

Bush said: “We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. … If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.”

FACT — BUSH PROPOSED FIRST CUT IN EDUCATION SPENDING IN A DECADE: Bush’s budget for FY 2006 proposed the “first cut in overall federal education spending in a decade.” The administration requested a reduction of a half billion dollars, or 0.9 percent, from the current spending plan. [Washington Post, 2/7/05]

FACT — SCIENCE EDUCATION HAS SUFFERED UNDER BUSH’S TERM: No Child Left Behind has actually hurt science education, by testing exclusively on math and reading. Some “teachers are being told to stop teaching science and get back to reading and math,” complains Gerald Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. [business Week, 3/16/04]

ZDNet Editor Technology management in education Subscribe Alerts Bio

February 15th, 2007

Bush cuts funding for science education

Posted by ZDNet Editor @ 8:33 am

Categories: Education Technology, Science Ed

http://education.zdnet.com/?p=847

[Jim88]

The rates of erosion of those types of rock have been measured...by eroding samples under controlled conditions...and the time required to erode the canyon is not hard to estimate.

You said so yourself it is an estimate.

Do you favor offering an alternative explanation to the earth circling the sun instead of the other way around?

It has been proven that the earth circles the sun.

What about the "hollow earth" people?

We know the earth isn't hollow. The hollow earth people say there is an opening at the pole too. Nobody has found an opening.

No, it's not just my opinion. I've heard many, many fundies say with their mouths that they intend to take USA away from the citizens and put a fundy priesthood in power instead.

Like who?

The country has seldom if ever been this close to being taking over by a priesthood.

What are you talking about? Nobody has repealed the first amendment. We're not even close to being taken over by a priesthood.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Jim88

[Deinychus_rulz]

You people should pay attention to a nation's politics, and actions, internal and external before juming to a conclusion that we are about to be taken over by a dictator!

[Blizno]

You people should pay attention to a nation's politics, and actions, internal and external before juming to a conclusion that we are about to be taken over by a dictator!

We have been watching very closely for years. We're jumping to no conclusions. It's been crystal clear for years that W wants to turn USA into a theocracy.

[Blizno]

You said so yourself it is an estimate.

Within a few hundred thousand years. No rational estimate comes within millions of years of the 6 thousand years claimed by the fundies.

It has been proven that the earth circles the sun.

It has been proven that humans descended from ape-like creatures who descended from, billions of years ago, single-celled living things. The fundies pretend that the evidence doesn't exist and are fighting furiously to prevent all American children from ever seeing the abundant evidence of billions-of-years-long evolution.

We know the earth isn't hollow. The hollow earth people say there is an opening at the pole too. Nobody has found an opening.

We know that the earth is billions of years old. That doesn't stop the insane freaks from pretending that it's only a few thousand years old.

What are you talking about? Nobody has repealed the first amendment. We're not even close to being taken over by a priesthood.

Iran was taken over by a priesthood. Turkey is fighting hard against being taken over by a priesthood. The Religious Right is fighting with all its might to replace elected government with its priests. Don't sneer. It's happening all around the world. We're not immune to insane religious fanaticism. It can happen here if we're not vigilent. It's happening NOW!

Edited May 23, 2007 by blizno

[Blizno]

Sorry for the double-post (Ouch!).

Edited May 23, 2007 by blizno

[Jim88]

Within a few hundred thousand years. No rational estimate comes within millions of years of the 6 thousand years claimed by the fundies.

Only a small number of Christians believe the world is six thousand years old.

Iran was taken over by a priesthood. Turkey is fighting hard against being taken over by a priesthood. The Religious Right is fighting with all its might to replace elected government with its priests. Don't sneer. It's happening all around the world. We're not immune to insane religious fanaticism. It can happen here if we're not vigilent. It's happening NOW!

No, the United States is not being taken over by religious fanatics. Just because our president is a Christian doesn't mean we're being taken over by religious fanatics. Christians don't even want an establishment of religion. They don't all believe the same things. Where did you get the idea that the United States is in any danger of having an establishment of religion? The government allows all sorts of religions, not just Christianity.

[Lt_Ripley]

Only a small number of Christians believe the world is six thousand years old.

No, the United States is not being taken over by religious fanatics. Just because our president is a Christian doesn't mean we're being taken over by religious fanatics. Christians don't even want an establishment of religion. They don't all believe the same things. Where did you get the idea that the United States is in any danger of having an establishment of religion? The government allows all sorts of religions, not just Christianity.

while I think there are too many level headed people that would reject a religious led United States , however there are alot that wouldn't mind.

the government may allow all sorts of religions , but it only seems to prescribe to one. It's wrong to put the 10 commandments , a very christian symbol* , on government property. At the very least if the government wanted to acknowledge religion , then a star of David or menorah as well as a Buddha , a crescent moon for islam , a pranava for Hindu's ect .............. should be right next to it.

* I don't think of other religions when I see them - nor do most I bet

Edited May 23, 2007 by Lt_Ripley