During the presidential debates in 2008 we were treated to a Republican debate which featured the question to the candidate field, "Raise your hand if you do not believe the scientific explanation of evolution and origin of species as generally laid out by Darwin." I am paraphrasing, of course, but this is the exact essence.
Rightly decried (by most of us) were those candidates who questioned the scientific evidence for evolution. These men believe in a version of the Christian faith that relies heavily on a strangely magical/mythical interpretation of the basic documents. This reminds me of when one of us was looking for a job in science and was asked by a potential employer how God moved in his life. When researching other answers to that question by current employees of that organization, he cam across a story that made our hero remark, "I may feel God moving in my life, but He's never talked to me through my car's engine." So we think those three candidates are pretty regressive in their interpretation of ancient wisdom.
Now today, we have some healthcare reform bills in Congress. The Senate bill includes a little gem (thank you, Orrin Hatch) about the federal government version of an insurer being required to accept prayer as a coverable healthcare expense. Seriously. Supporting that provision are (and were) Senators Kerry and Kennedy from Massachusetts. Why? Almost certainly because the Christian Science church is large and powerful in Boston. Kennedy and Kerry are both pretty traditional Roman Catholics, and as such I think it's not a stretch for me to assume they don't believe in direct healing through prayer. So cynicism is the only answer at this stage--they are pleasing their constituents.
So which is better--an honest person who believes in magic or a cynical person who will throw his religious beliefs under the bus? For me, I trust the cynical politician less, but I can work with cynicism. The magicians are scarier to me.
Both are awful.
Rightly decried (by most of us) were those candidates who questioned the scientific evidence for evolution. These men believe in a version of the Christian faith that relies heavily on a strangely magical/mythical interpretation of the basic documents. This reminds me of when one of us was looking for a job in science and was asked by a potential employer how God moved in his life. When researching other answers to that question by current employees of that organization, he cam across a story that made our hero remark, "I may feel God moving in my life, but He's never talked to me through my car's engine." So we think those three candidates are pretty regressive in their interpretation of ancient wisdom.
Now today, we have some healthcare reform bills in Congress. The Senate bill includes a little gem (thank you, Orrin Hatch) about the federal government version of an insurer being required to accept prayer as a coverable healthcare expense. Seriously. Supporting that provision are (and were) Senators Kerry and Kennedy from Massachusetts. Why? Almost certainly because the Christian Science church is large and powerful in Boston. Kennedy and Kerry are both pretty traditional Roman Catholics, and as such I think it's not a stretch for me to assume they don't believe in direct healing through prayer. So cynicism is the only answer at this stage--they are pleasing their constituents.
So which is better--an honest person who believes in magic or a cynical person who will throw his religious beliefs under the bus? For me, I trust the cynical politician less, but I can work with cynicism. The magicians are scarier to me.
Both are awful.
1 comment:
So which is better--an honest person who believes in magic or a cynical person who will throw his religious beliefs under the bus? For me, I trust the cynical politician less, but I can work with cynicism. The magicians are scarier to me.
Both are awful.
Yeah, I can't say how upset I was to hear that respectable democrats had a hand in this (and I mean respectable as a distinction from the kind-of-nutty wing of the elected democratic party, like Kucinich or Sanders).
There is some tiny tiny speck of rightness here, though. n a way, this is how representative politics is supposed to work -- a constituent communicates an issue to their lawmaker, and the lawmaker tries to address it. It speaks well for the open-mindedness of Kerry & Kennedy (& Hatch) that although none of them belong to the religion in question, they did not discriminate against the Christian Scientists on the theory that their magic was less plausible than the Catholic/Mormon magic. Right? Right?
No, never mind. It's still awful.
Post a Comment